Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Throe of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in, the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Tyne Improvement Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Thursday.

Walsall Corporation Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

LAND (SUBDIVISION).

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: 1.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether it is the intention of the Government of India to attempt to deal by legislation with the subdivision of land in India, which has resulted in some places in a considerable drop in the area under wheat?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): The matter is one for the Provincial Governments rather than the Government of India. My Noble Friend is not aware that any legislation on the subject is projected.

EX-ENEMY VESSELS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 2.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the steamers "Kurmark," "Frankenfels," "Rotenfels," "Freienfels," and "Braunfels," formerly prizes of war, which have been managed by the Indian Government or the India Office for some years, have been run at a profit; if so, at what profit; whether it is now proposed to sell them to Greek shippers; what is the reason for this policy; and what provision is to be made to maintain the employment of the British officers and seamen employed in these ships?

Earl WINTERTON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The total profit earned on the five ships named amounts to something over £1,700,000. These ships were condemned to detention only, and condemnation as prize cannot be obtained. They therefore have to be handed over to the Reparation Commission under the Treaty of Versailles. It is understood that the Reparation Commission will allot them for final ownership to the British Govern-
ment. The remaining parts of the question should therefore be addressed to the Board of Trade.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I take it that, so far as the India Office is concerned, they will endeavour to continue the management of this very profitable undertaking, and not allow these ships to be sold over their heads?

Earl WINTERTON: No. As I have already explained, it does not lie with either the India Office or the Government of India; it is a matter under the Treaty of Versailles, and my answer stated the legal position.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I want to get this matter clear. The Reparation Commission will presently have the vessels to dispose of, and is there any reason why they should not be made over to the India Office?

Earl WINTERTON: That is a matter for the Reparation Commission. It has nothing whatever to do with the India Office.

PUBLICATIONS (PROHIBITED ENTRY).

Mr. LANSBURY: 5.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India if he is aware that the following publications, Hyndman's "The Awakening of Asia," Bryan's "British Rule in India, "M. N. Roy's" Evolution of Economic Organisation of India," Lala Lajpat Rai's "England's Debt to India," and "Labour Monthly Magazine," have been prohibited entry into India tinder the Sea Customs Act: and will he state the reason for such prohibition?

Earl WINTERTON: The entry into India of the first four of the publications mentioned is prohibited by notifications under the Sea Customs Act. The reason in the case of three of them was that the publications contained false and malicious misrepresentations of the British administration in India. Roy's hook was prescribed because all his writings and those of his wife are prohibited, in view of their complicity in a. foreign organised conspiracy to overthrow British rule in India. I have no definite information regarding the fifth
of the publications mentioned; but it occasionally contains articles by these persons and this would, no doubt, bring the particular issue within the general bar against those writings.

Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask the Noble Lord whether he has read the books himself?

Earl WINTERTON: No, Sir. I am prepared to leave the matter to the Government of India, who are the proper authority to deal with it.

Mr. LANSBURY: That may very well be, but surely this House has something to say. I should like to ask the Noble Lord whether this House has not something to say on the question of whether hooks written by a British subject like the late Mr. H. M. Hyndman should he prohibited from going into India at the present time?

Earl WINTERTON: It is open to the hon. Member, if he gets an opportunity to do so, to move a Vote of Censure OD the Government.

Mr. LANSBURY: I do not want to do that until you have read them.

Mr. THURTLE: Is the Noble Lord aware that all these books may be purchased in this country?

Earl WINTERTON: Yes, Sir; but the conditions in this country and those in India vary very greatly.

TRADE UNIONS.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: 6.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India have introduced a Bill to the Legislative Assembly dealing with the restriction of trade unions in India; and, if so, whether the Bill restricts the expenditure of funds to purely trade union purposes of a nonpolitical character?

Earl WINTERTON: The Government of India have introduced a Bill for the registration of trade unions, and to define. in certain respects the law relating to registered unions. The Bill limits the expenditure of registered trade unions to certain specified objects which do not include any of a political character.

MEDICAL SERVICES (LEE COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS).

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: 8.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India when the Government will state their proposals for dealing with the recommendations of the Lee Commission with regard to the medical services in India; and whether the House will be given an opportunity of discussing them before any decision is arrived at?

Earl WINTERTON: My Noble Friend has not yet received the Government of India's recommendations though he expects them very shortly. He would prefer to await them before giving any undertaking in reply to the last part. of the question.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: May I ask in what form they will be published?

Earl WINTERTON: I am afraid I could not answer that question until they actually arrive.

HANDLOOMS (IMPORT DUTY).

Mr. SAKLATVALA: 3.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the hardship caused to the poorer Indian peasants thereby, he will explain why anad valoremtax of 15 per cent. is placed upon hand looms entering India whilst the duty on power looms is only 2½. per cent.; and if he will say whether it is proposed in the near future to put into operation the recommendation as to hand looms contained in paragraph iii, pages 61–62 of the Report of the Indian Fiscal Commission, 1921–22?

Earl WINTERTON: The principle on which machinery, including power looms, is admitted into India at a low rate of duty is apparently that it is considered desirable to open the door freely to such articles as represent what may be called the fixed capital employed in productive industries. The Government of India have not stated that they propose to take any action on the recommendation of the Indian Fiscal Commission referred to by the hon. Member. A copy of his question will be forwarded to the Government of India.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: Will the right hon. Gentleman, when he forwards the question to the Government of India, draw attention to the iniquitous burden placed on those British firms who have, at a
very high cost, developed this industry, and who have been penalised as compared with the traders in power looms?

Earl W1NTERTON: It is difficult within the recognised limits of an answer to a question to define the position of the. Secretary of State in a matter of this kind. No doubt the matter which the hon. Gentleman has brought forward was present to the mind of the Government of India when they imposed this duty, but the other reasons were considered by them to be overwhelming.

SOVEREIGN STATES.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: 4.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India to what extent the sovereign States of India of the importance of Hyderabad, Mysore, Kashmir, and Bhopal have freedom in their internal affairs, such as the appointment of their Ministers, including the Chief Minister, and the succession to their thrones in consonance with the traditions and religion of the peoples concerned; and, if there is any interference in such internal affairs by the Government of India, under what authority is it taken?

Earl WINTERTON: I cannot within the limits of a reply to a question go into details, but, generally speaking, the rulers of States such as those mentioned enjoy full liberty in the appointment of Ministers and in other matters of purely internal administration, subject always to the right of the British Government to intervene for special reasons, such as the prevention of gross misrule. Successions require the recognition of the British Government, but where there is a natural heir in the direct line are a matter of course. The British Government intervenes authoritatively in all cases of disputed succession. The right to intervene is inherent in the position of the British Government as paramount Power.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA.

NATIVES (FINGER PRINTS).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the taking of the finger prints of natives engaged in industrial and domestic work in Kenya Colony and the Gold Coast is carried out by administrative officials or by the police whether he can state the cost to the territories in
question of this procedure; and whether the results are such as to warrant the extension of the practice to other territories under the direct control of the Crown?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): The recording of finger prints in the eases referred to is carried out by officials of the Native Affairs Department in Kenya and by the police in the Gold Coast, where the new rules only came into operation on the 1st January last, and where there is at present no separate finger print bureau as in Kenya. The annual cost of Kenya is about £5,000 for staff, plus a proportion of other charges general to the Native Affairs Department as a whole, which cannot be accurately estimated. The question of extending the practice to other Colonies must, of course, depend on local conditions obtaining in these Colonies, as well as on the results in Kenya and the Gold Coast.

CULTIVABLE AREA.

Mr. SNELL: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the total cultivable area in the Kenya Colony and Protectorate; how much of it is included, respectively, in the highlands, lowlands, and coast lands; how much of the cultivable area in the highlands is in the exclusive possession of Europeans and how much in that of natives: how much of the cultivable area in the lowlands and the coast lands has been alienated to Europeans and how much has been included in the native reserves; and how much cultivable area is included in the land yet available for alienation to non-Europeans?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I regret that I have not the information necessary for a detailed reply to the points raised by the hon. Member, as no census of cultivable land in Kenya has, to my knowledge, been made, while as regards the lands alienated, my information as to the division among highlands, lowlands, and coast lands is not definite. I may observe that the area for which these particulars are required amounts to 215,000 square miles. In the circumstances, I am consulting the Acting Governor of Kenya, and on receipt of his reply I will
inform the hon. Member, in order that he may repeat his question if he desires he do so.

Mr. SNELL: Is it not possible for the Colonial Office to obtain this information without great trouble or expense?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I am afraid is will be impossible to obtain an estimate of the cultivable land without a complete economic survey, but the area of the lands already alienated to European occupation, and lands delimited as native reserves, probably could he obtained.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that figures for the land actually cultivated are given in the Annual Report of the Native Affairs Department?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Yes: the Reports of the Native Affairs Department and the Agricultural Department, published each year, give the acres of land actually under cultivation, but. that is very different from the cultivable land.

NAIROBI (RATING OF UNIMPROVED SITE VALUES).

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can state what is the ruling of the. Supreme Court of Kenya on the application recently made on behalf of the Nairobi Ratepayers' Association impugning the validity of amendments made in 1924 to the Nairobi Rating of Unimproved Site Values Ordinance?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The officer administering the Government of Kenya has reported by telegram that, on the application of the defendant in the suit referred to, the Supreme Court issued a writ of certiorari and gave judgment, on the 10th February quashing the proceedings in the Civil Court, because that Court took no proof of debt and issued a warrant without notice to show cause.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLD COAST.

NATIVE MINE WORKERS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether an inquiry has taken place into sickness and death rates amongst the native mine-workers of the Gold Coast Colony; and whether the-Report will be published?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Yes, Sir. Sir William Simpson's Report will be published by the Crown Agents in a few days.

DIAMOND FIELDS.

Mr.MAXTON (for Mr. JOHNSTON): 21.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware of the existence of diamond fields on the Gold Coast; that such a discovery was made by a public official called the Director of Geological Survey for the Gold Coast in 1919; that the sole rights for prospecting were immediately acquired by Akim, Ltd.; will he say what considerations, if any, were given in return for the prospecting rights; is he aware that the shares of Akim, Ltd., have since been acquired by the West African Diamond Syndicate, Ltd.; and will he say if the public revenues of the Gold Coast benefit in any way from any diamonds secured by this company?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I am aware that diamonds were discovered by the. Director of Geological Survey in 1919. This discovery did not operate to vest the mining rights in the Government; under the Gold Coast law they remain with the native communities, which can, subject to the supervision of the Supreme Court, transfer them. This was, doubtless, the course followed in this case, though I have no details of the transactions, which are not subject to my control. Under Ordinance No. 12 of 1919 the Gold Coast Government levies a duty of 5 per cent. on the value of diamonds exported.

Mr. MAXTON: Does the Gold Coast Government take any steps to protect the natives in seeing that they are fairly treated in parting with their rights?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: That is under the control of the legal administration and not under the administration of the Government. It is the duty of the Supreme Court to deal with all these land questions. The Government keep out-of the land question on the Gold Coast as far as possible. Practically all the land belongs to some native owner, either collectively or individually.

Mr. MAXTON: Am I to understand that the Supreme Court of the Gold Coast is independent of the Gold Coast Government?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Certainly, on legal questions.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Do we get no benefit at all from the discovery by our servant of these diamonds? Ought not we to have some discoverer's claim, or something beyond the mere export duty?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I certainly think that it would be very wrong for us in this House to demand payment from the Gold Coast.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: By "we" I mean His Majesty's Government of this Crown Colony.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The revenues of the Crown Colony do not belong to us in this House. They belong to the Crown Colony.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: When I say "we" I am talking of the. Government of one of His Majesty's Crown Colonies, and the right hon. Gentleman knows that well.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: It has never been the policy of this House to endeavour to exploit the national resources of Crown Colonies in the interests of the taxpayers.

Mr. HARDIE: What about your syndicates?

SETTLERS' EFFECTS (FREIGHT RATES).

Mr. B. SMITH: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that there is a great disparity in the freight rates to Canada for settlers' effects charged by conference lines and non-conference lines and whether, in the interests of British emigrants, he will endeavour to secure reasonable flat freight rates for settlers' effects

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Burton Chadwick): I have been asked to reply. I have seen the statement to which the hon. Member refers about freight rates to Canada for settlers' effects, but am unable without investigation to say whether it is correct or not. I understand that the whole question of freight rates to Canada, will shortly be investigated by a special Parliamentary Committee in Canada.

Mr. SMITH: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in accordance with the Preston Report, which is a Canadian Government Official Report, that that colony is intending to treat the disparity of the freight rates between, or the favouritism between Germany and other countries as against British exports and imports from Canada —that they are about to make it a first-class political issue, having regard to the fact that they claim that the British peers, knights and directors of the shipping conference of this country have whittled away the preference that was granted to them!

Sir B. CHADWICK: No doubt that will be-the subject of the investigation to which I have referred. We must await the result of it.

Mr. SMITH: Can the hon. Gentleman give the House some idea of the date of the inquiry, and how it will be constituted?

Sir B. CHADWICK: I have no particulars about the inquiry, because it is not our inquiry, but the Canadian Government's inquiry.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

MANDATED TERRITORIES (REPORTS).

Captain LODER: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Reports submitted by the British and Dominion Governments to the Permanent Mandates Commission of the League of Nations on territories under their mandate will be presented to Parliament; and whether he will cause the most recent Reports to be presented as soon as possible?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: It was decided in 1923, and the decision has since been followed, that the Reports on territories mandated to this country, like the Annual Reports on the Colonies and Protectorates, should be published, not as Parliamentary Papers, i.e.., in the series known as "Command" papers, but in a separate series of publication issued by the Stationery Office. I shall be happy to give my hon. and gallant friend a list of the most recent such Reports. The question of the publication of the Reports en the territories mandated to the
Dominions is one for the Governments of the Dominions concerned.

SAAR COMMISSION.

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: 41.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, at the council meeting of the League of Nations beginning on 9th March, he will press for the appointment of a neutral president of the Saar Commission in place of M. Rault?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Austen Chamberlain): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by me to the hon. and gallant Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) on the 18th February.

Mr. SMITH: Are there no members already sitting on the Commission who have the necessary qualifications, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred in his previous answer, other than a Frenchman or a Belgian?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think it is obviously undesirable that I should discuss in this House the individual qualifications of gentlemen sitting on a Commission of this character and drawn from several different countries, but I have arrived at the conclusion that, in the interest of all the parties concerned, the most suitable candidate for the chairmanship at the present moment is the present chairman. I make that statement in order to be quite frank with the House, but I would beg hon. Members, and the House at large, not to tie the British delegate to these international conferences too tightly by pledges or public statements beforehand. The whole object of these conferences is that we should come with open minds and put what we have to contribute into the common stock out of which a common agreement may arise, and if each of us in our own Parliament is to be pledged in advance to a particular course of action, T think the whole object of the League meetings will be destroyed.

Mr. SMITH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that for five years now there has been a French President of this Commission, and that throughout the country there is, especially among the friends of the League, a growing concern that the whole idea of the League is not at all being satisfactorily carried out?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My answer to the first part of the hon. Member's supplementary question is in the affirmative, and to the second in the negative.

Mr. LEES SMITH: rose
—

Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot now have a Debate.

SINGAPORE (HOUSING AND SANITARY CONDITIONS).

Mr. CECIL WILSON: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that, in tile course of an inquiry in 1905 into the high death rate in Singapore, it was pointed out that one-fifth of the population was permanently on the sick list and that much of the death and sickness was preventible; and can he state what has been done since that time to improve housing and sanitary conditions and what amount of money has been spent on such improvements?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I am calling on the Governor to supply a comprehensive report on the points raised in this question and will communicate further with the hon. Member as soon as it is received.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the hon. Gentleman send this report to the Admiralty also when it is received?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I have no doubt that both the Admiralty and the War Office will receive a copy.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: And the Air Ministry.

Mr. C. WILSON: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that in 1917 a Commission was appointed to inquire into the cause of the then housing difficulties in Singapore and the steps that should be taken to remedy such difficulties, arid that the Commission stated in emphatic terms their opinion that a very great deal of the housing difficulty has been caused by the failure of Europeans to house their assistants, and expressed the view that an official declaration by the Government of its opinion on this point would have some result; whether any action was taken, and, if so, what; and whether it has had any effect?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the
affirmative. As regards the second and third parts, I will call upon the Governor for a report.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will not this housing shortage shortly be removed by the Government buildings to be put up at Singapore?

IMPERIAL ECONOMIC COMMITTEE.

Lieut.-Colonel A. McDONNELL: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Crown Colonies and Protectorates are to be represented on the Imperial Economic Committee to consider the importation of fruit; and, if so, by whom?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The Colonies and Protectorates will be represented on the Committee by Sir Gilbert Grindle, the senior Assistant Under-Secretary of State in the Colonial Office, with a second representative, who will he specially chosen by a panel, the members of which will be named by the various bodies in this country concerned with the business interests of the Colonies and Protectorates. This representative will be selected according to the particular question coming before the Committee.

Sir FREDRIC WISE: When are they likely to meet? When will the first meeting take place?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I have no knowledge of the exact date.

Captain LODER: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is in a position to give any further information with regard to the setting up of the Imperial Economic Committee?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I hope that it may be possible to make an announcement regarding the composition of the Committee within the next few days.

IMPORTS AND EXPORTS.

22 and 23. Lieut.-Colonel Sir EDWARD GRIGG: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department (1) whether he will state, in pre-War values, the annual totals of British exports to, and imports from, all countries outside Europe, except Canada, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand,
and India, in 1922, 1923 and 1924, as compared with the total exports to, and imports from the same countries in 1913;

(2) whether he will state, in pre-War values, the annual totals of British exports to, and imports from, Canada, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, and India, respectively, in 1922, 1923 and 1924, as compared with the total exports to, and imports from, the same countries in 1913?

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): Unfortunately all the material for furnishing a complete answer to these questions is not in the possession of the Board of Trade. In so far as information is available or can be obtained, the work involved in getting reliable results would entail an expenditure which would not be justified by the value of the results. I would, however, refer the hon. and gallant Member to the tables given in the "Board of Trade Journal" of 19th February, which give the proportionate distribution of exports, imports, and re-exports, by markets in 1913 and 1924. A copy of the Journal shall be sent to the hon. Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

TRADE DELEGATION (GREAT BRITAIN).

Sir JAMES REMNANT: 24.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if he can state the total number of persons employed in Great Britain by the Russian trade delegations and connections; and how MAW of these persons are employed at the headquarters in London?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The total number of persons employed is 856, of whom 472 are British subjects. All of these persons have their headquarters in London. The number employed in the offices of the Trade Delegation itself is 43.

STRAITS CONVENTION.

Sir E. GRIGG: 36.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Russian Government has ever signed or ratified the Straits Convention annexed to the Treaty of Lausanne; whether it has refused to appoint a representative on the Straits Commission set up by that
Convention; and whether he can give the House any information as to the work of the Commission up to the present time?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Soviet representative in Rome signed the Straits Convention on behalf of the Soviet Government on the 14th August, 1923. No information has been received of the ratification of the 'Convention by the Soviet Government, and no such ratification having yet been deposited in Paris, as provided for in Article 20 of the Convention, the Convention is not yet in force as regards Russia. The question of the appointment of a Russian representative on the Commission has not, therefore, yet arisen. The Commission has already met, and will, as provided for in Article 15 of the Convention, report to the League of Nations annually on its activities.

COMMERCIAL TREATY WITII GERMANY.

Mr. LIVINGSTONE: 38.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any information regarding the proposed commercial treaty between Germany and the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Negotiations for a commercial treaty between Germany and the Soviet Union opened in Moscow on the 15th November, and are new, understand, being resumed after an adjournment. So far as I am aware, the negotiations cover the subjects ordinarily treated of in commercial treaties.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

GREEN PLOVER.

Mr. BASIL PETO: 25.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the serious diminution of the number of green plover throughout. the country; and whether he proposes to take any steps to protect the eggs of these birds during the breeding season?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): I have been asked to take this question. Representations are received from time to time that this bird is diminishing in numbers, and in order to give it more adequate protection than can he given under the existing law, special provisions relating to it have been included in the Bill for
the amendment of the Wild Birds Protection Acts. I regret that owing to the pressure of other business, I am not in a position to state whether it will be possible to introduce this Bill this Session.

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: Is it not a fact that seven to-day various sea birds do their best to supply an approximate egg?

HEAVY HORSE GRANTS.

Mr. SMITH-CARINGTON: 28.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can now announce the scale upon which heavy horse grants will he made for the coming season; and whether the conditions upon which they will be paid are to be the same as in 1924?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Edward Wood): A direct grant not exceeding will be payable this season to a heavy horse society on the same conditions as last year. I am glad to say, also, that I am able to restore this year the grants of a similar amount for the award of assisted nominations which were discontinued after the 1921 season. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of the Regulations governing the award of these grants.

FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.

Mr. NOEL BUXTON: 29.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will give information as to the progress made by the Scientific Committee on Foot-and-mouth Disease?

Mr. WOOD: I fear that I can add nothing to the reply which 1 returned to the hon. Member for Dewsbury on the 11th December last, except that the experimental station to accommodate larger animals is now practically completed. The Committee will issue a first Progress Report as soon as possible after the 31st March, 1025.

Mr. RHYS: When will the Report of the Committee on Foot-and-mouth Disease presided over by Mr. Pretyman be available?

Mr. WOOD: I think it has already gone to the printers, and will therefore be laid almost immediately.

UNDER-CULTIVATED LAND.

Mr. BUXTON: 30.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will take steps, legisla-
tive or otherwise, towards carrying out a survey designed to ascertain the extent to which agricultural land in England and Wales is under-cultivated, in view of existing economic possibilities?

Mr. WOOD: The survey which is suggested by the right hon. Gentleman would present. exceptional difficulties in execution, especially in view of the fact that the interpretation of the expression "under-cultivated" must. be largely, if not entirely, a matter of opinion. For this reason, while fully alive to the desirability of obtaining information as exact as possible on this matter, I am unable to give the undertaking the right hon. Gentleman desires.

Mr. BUXTON: In spite of these difficulties, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the degree of under-cultivation is so serious as to demand an inquiry of some kind?

Mr. WOOD: I have already said that I am fully alive to the desirability of having full information, and if the right hon. Gentleman can suggest any way of overcoming these difficulties I shall be only too happy to consider it with him.

PROPOSED CONFERENCE (ABANDONMENT).

Mr. MacKENZIE LIVINGSTONE: 32.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether it is the intention of the. Government to proceed with the proposed Agricultural Conference?

Colonel BURTON: 33.
asked the Minister of Agriculture, whether he is aware that there, exists a widespread desire that the Agricultural Conference called by the Government should meet as early as possible; and whether he can afford any information as to the date upon which the first meeting of the Conference will take place?

Mr. WOOD: In view of the refusal of both of the Labour Unions to take part in the proposed conference of agricultural interests, the Government have come to the conclusion that it is impossible to establish a conference on the lines originally suggested. It was proposed by the Government in the hope that, if an agreement between the different sections of the industry could be attained, this alight prove the foundation of an agreement between political parties as to a
permanent national policy. The refusal of the Labour Unions to participate in the conference has destroyed this hope.
I have carefully considered the possibility of providing representation of farm workers other than from the two unions to which invitations were issued, but apart from the fact that such action would be unlikely to contribute to that political agreement which it was the main purpose of the suggested conference to secure, I am informed that in such an event the Council of the National Farmers' Union would withdraw their representatives.
In these circumstances it will be the duty of the Government, on their own responsibility, to frame such proposals for the assistance of agriculture as are consistent with the necessity of protecting the industry from the danger of sharp reversals of national policy, and with this end in view the Government propose, in accordance with their declared purpose of arriving at the greatest possible measure of agreement, to seek the co-operation of, and invite considered suggestions from the representatives of the different sections of the industry.

Mr. LIVINGSTONE: Can the Minister inform the House when the Government will do this?

Mr. WOOD: We propose to do it forthwith.

Colonel Sir ALEXANDER SPROT: Is it not the case that the Scottish Conference on Agriculture is to take place?

Mr. WOOD: I think that question should be addressed to the Secretary for Scotland

WASH (RECLAMATION).

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 34.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can inform the House as to the progress being made in the reclamation of the Wash?

Mr. WOOD: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave on Thursday last to a similar question addressed to me by the hon. and gallant Member for Bromley, a copy of which I am sending to him.

KURDISTAN (REBELLION).

Captain EDEN: 37.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give any information with reference to the rebellion now in progress in Kurdistan; and whether the disturbances in connection therewith are confined to Turkish territory?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My information does not extend beyond the news which has already appeared in the Press.

GERMANY (DISARMAMENT).

Captain W. BENN: 39.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can give a list of the particulars in which the German Government has already complied with the demands of the Allies with regard to disarmament

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): I have been asked to reply. The final Report of the Inter-Allied Military Commission. of Control on the general inspection carried out in Germany between September, 1924, and January, 1925, is now being investigated by the Allied Military Committee of Versailles, and it would be premature to issue any statement until the Report of the Allied Military Committee of Versailles has been received and considered by the Allied Governments.

Captain BENN: I fear that my question has been misunderstood. I asked what measures of disarmament the German Government have already taken. I am not speaking of defaults.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: There is a report which deals with that question, and I think it would be premature to make any statement until that report has been considered.

Captain BENN: Are the Government unable to make any general statement as to what degree Germany has disarmed?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: We are only unwilling for the moment for fear of misleading the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Major CRAWFURD: Can we be assured that the report will be published?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: No, Sir.

MOROCCO.

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: 40.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British Government is prepared to support the Riffis in their appeal to the League of Nations to settle their dispute with Spain; and, if not, on what grounds?
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British Government is prepared to support the Riffis in their appeal to the League of Nations to settle their dispute with Spain; and, if not, on what grounds?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: So far as I am aware no such appeal has been made. In any case this is not a matter in which the League would have jurisdiction.

Captain BENN: Is it a fact that medical supplies are being withheld from the Riffis that have been offered by Red Crescent Societies?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As far as His Majesty's Government are concerned, I defined their attitude in an answer to a question put to me in this House, I think about a fortnight ago. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will be good enough to refer to it; I will try and get him the reference.

Captain BENN: I was asking the right hon. Gentleman if the attitude of the British Government is to support the withholding of medical supplies if offered by Red Crescent Societies?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I was inviting the hon. and gallant Gentleman, if he would be good enough to do so, to read the answer I gave to a similar question, and I offered, in order to facilitate his researches, to find the reference for him.

Mr. LEES SMITH: What is the reason for stating that the League of Nations will have no jurisdiction on this question?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would sooner not make a statement on a matter of that kind without notice, but broadly speaking, it is because it is not one of the cases which, under the Covenant, can properly come before the League of Nations. It is a domestic question, and not an international one.

Mr. SMITH: Are not questions of that sort allowed to be brought before the League under Article 11?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir; domestic questions are not proper ones for consideration or interference by the League.

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT (MONMOUTHSHIRE).

Mr. BARKER: 42.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that on 12th February last an order was issued to local employment committees depriving unemployed persons of benefit who have not paid eight contributions under the Unemployment Insurance Acts since 3rd July, 1922; that this order has deprived about 500 miners of benefit at Nantygle arid Blaina, Monmouthshire, since 19th February, 1925; that there are 30,000 miners out of employment in South Wales and Monmouthshire at the present time; that it is impossible for the unemployed miners to obtain work; and will he, therefore, revoke this order and restore unemployment benefit to these persons?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): The requirement referred to in the first part of the question was announced and explained in the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour to the hon. and gallant Member for Bury (Major Aims-worth) on the 11th February. The requirement is imposed in exercise of the power given to the Minister of Labour to suspend temporarily the full effect of the condition imposed by the Act of last August, namely, that 30 contributions must have been paid since the beginning of the last. insurance year hut one. Those who have been disqualified in the Blaina and Nantyglo district have been in receipt of benefit out of the Unemployment Fund for so long that. I fear that it is impossible to restrict the recent order and allow them to remain on benefit for a further indefinite period.

Mr. BARKER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the effect of that order will be to drive these people to the boards of guardians, and that the Bedwellty Board of Guardians have already involved themselves in a loan of £400,000 for the unemployed?

Mr. BETTERTON: I am well aware that the position of these men is very serious, but I am sure the hon. Member will agree that I cannot, in answer to a question, give a fuller answer than I have given now. without becoming involved in a discussion as to the whole extent
and application of the Unemployment Insurance Act. I would, therefore, ask the hon. Member if he will raise the question in the discussion which is going to take place in the course of the next few days.

Mr. HARDIE: Is it the policy of the Government to sweep the Employment Exchanges of these cases so as to throw them on the boards of guardians in England and the parish councils in Scotland, with a view to raising the local rates?

Mr. SPEAKER: That question can be dealt with in the Debate this day week.

PUBLIC ASSISTANCE.

Sir FRANK SANDERSON: 43.
asked the Minister of Labour the existing number of unemployed. classified as to men, women, and boys and girls, and the corresponding numbers in 1913: the present number of inmates of workhouses and prisons, and the corresponding numbers of inmates in 1913; and the number of persons who to-day are drawing benefits from Poor Law relief, and the corresponding number of such persons in 1913?

Mr. BETTERTON: I have consulted the Home Office and Ministry of Health in connection with this question, and have obtained the information which my hon. Friend desires. As the reply is necessarily somewhat long, T will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

At 11th February, 1925, the numbers on the registers of Employment Exchanges in Great Britain were:

Men, 943,088; boys, 35,323: women, 227,703 and girls, 33,682. It is not possible to give comparable figures for 1913, at which date only about 21¼ million persons were covered by the Unemployment Insurance Scheme, as against about 111 millions at present.

In England and Wales, the number of persons in receipt of institutional Poor Law relief on 15th February, 1913, was 276,164, and on 14th February, 1925, was
222,738. The number of persons in receipt of domiciliary Poor Law relief on those dates was 388,528 and 885,862 respectively. These totals do not include persons in county and borough lunatic. asyulms, persons in receipt of medical relief only, or casuals.

The daily average population of prisons in England and Wales was 18,236 in the 12 months ending 31st, March, 1914, and 11,148 in the 12 months ending 31st March, 1924.

My hon. Friend will observe that the figures given in reply to the first part of the question relate to Great Britain, whereas those given in reply to the remaining parts of the question relate to England and Wales only. I am, however, obtaining from the Scottish Office the necessary figures to complete the information, and will communicate them to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

TURERCULOSIS.

Mr. ROBERT MORRISON: 44.
asked the Minister of Pensions how many appeals upon the ground of tuberculosis have been heard by the tribunal during the past two years: how many have been refused; and how many allowed?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Lieut.-Colonel Stanley): My right hon. Friend regrets that the records of the Ministry do not enable these particulars to be given.

Mr. MORRISON: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that a very large number of men who were gassed in the War have since developed tuberculosis of the lungs, and that there is great dissatisfaction because of the enormous number of men suffering from tuberculosis of the lungs who have been turned down by the tribunals?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: That is not under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Pensions, and I can only repeat that the records of the Ministry do not enable the particulars asked for in the question to he given.

Mr. MORRISON: 48.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether a man who has lost both legs as a result of war service is entitled to the maximum constant attendance allowance of £1 per week?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: Men who have had both legs amputated at or above the middle of the thigh are eligible for the constant attendance allowance of 20s. a week in addition to their pensions. In other cases of double leg amputation the amount of the allowance would depend on the extent of the personal assistance ascertained to be required.

Mr. MORRISON: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the Minister of Pensions in the last Parliament but one—the same right hon. Gentleman who is Minister to-day—definitely laid it down in this House that all men who had lost both legs as a result of war service were entitled to the maximum attendance allowance?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: I am afraid I cannot say what happened in the Parliament before last, because I was not here, but as a matter of fact the regulation has always been that it depends on the amount of personal attendance that is necessary to the pensioner, what amount he should receive as weekly allowance.

Captain GEE: In view of the various statements that have been. made by Ministers of Pensions in this House, will the hon. and gallant Gentleman set up a Committee to inquire into the different statements which have been made and the regulations which are now being quoted?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: I do not think there have been many different statements, but I will look into the facts.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is considering the formation of a Foreign Affairs Committee, on the lines adopted by several other great Powers, and containing a representative, or representatives, from each of our self-governing Dominions?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): No. Sir, nor have I had any indica-
tion that such a proposal would be acceptable to the Dominions; but the question of working in closer co-operation with the Dominions in connection with the conduct of foreign affairs continues to engage the serious attention of His Majesty's Government.

FRANCHISE (WOMEN).

Mr. AMMON: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government will recommend to the proposed joint conference that women be given the vote on the same conditions as men; and whether the Government will recommend that women be given the vote at the age of 21?

The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot at present add anything to what was said in the course of the Debate of the 20th February.

Captain BENN: Would the Prime Minister say what age he had in mind when he gave his pledge at the election?

DISARMAMENT.

Captain GARRO-JONES: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is acquainted with the views of the Dominions on the subject of air and naval disarmament, and will he communicate them to the Hon?

The PRIME MINISTER: As the hon. and gallant Member will be aware, the question of disarmament was among the subjects discussed at the Imperial Conference of 1923, and I. would refer him to the conclusion published on page 17 of the Summary of Proceedings (Cmd. 1987). I am confident that the conclusion there recorded still represents the views of the Governments of all parts of the Empire.

Captain GARRO-JONES: In view of the fact that the situation is rapidly changing, and that the Foreign Secretary is going to Geneva next Monday, will the Dominions be able to, represent their views in the event of the reported rejection of the Geneva Protocol by the Government?

The PRIME MINISTER: I think the Dominions are in pretty close touch with us on all these matters.

POOR RATE (SCOTLAND).

Mr. WRIGHT: 51.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether he can state the amount of poor rate levied in the parishes of Blantyre, Cambuslang and Rutherglen, respectively, for each of the five years, 1909 to 1913, and for the years, 1920 to 1924?

Mr. F. C. THOMSON (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. As the question involves a tabular statement, my right hon. Friend proposes, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate the answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

Amount of Poor Rate Levied in Parishes of


—
Blantyre.
Cumbuslang.
Rutherglen.



£
£
£


1908–09
4,654
3,345
5,232


1909–10
4,736
3,361
5,450


1910–11
6,740
3,808
5,998


1911–12
6,169
6,480
5,589


1912–13
5,364
5,370
5,308


1919–20
6,633
7,987
7,504


1920–21
13,998
16,709
16,626


1921–22
27,169
20,291
16,963


1922–23
23,967
31,053
26,235


1923–24
26,472
25,785
27,303

AERIAL WARFARE.

Colonel DAY: 53.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether, with a view of demonstrating the possibility of further aerial warfare, he will see that in the next aerial pageant organised by his Department, besides the demonstrations of the bombing of warships and tanks, there shall be demonstrations of the bombing of the residences of noncombatants?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Major Sir Philip Sassoon): I have been asked to reply. The answer is in the negative.

Captain BRASS: Do you, Sir, consider that this is a question which should have been asked, insinuating, as it does, that His Majesty's Forces bomb non-combatants?

Mr. SPEAKER: I think it does carry an imputation which is not usually allowed in questions.

Mr. LEES SMITH: On a point of Order. Is it not a fact that this question does not indicate that this bombing is by this country any more than by our enemies?

Mr. SPEAKER: I would rather not give other than a considered opinion on the point.

Mr. LANSBURY: Is it not a fact that the British Air Force does bomb unarmed people in Iraq or elsewhere?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must not expect me to express an opinion on that.

FOREIGN MATCHES (HOUSE OF COMMONS).

Lieut.-Colonel DALRYMPLE WHITE: 56.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of works, whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that matches manufactures in Czechslovakia are now being supplied to the House of Commons; and whether he can assure that, as far, as is possible, only articles of home or Dominions manufacture shall be use in all Government Departments?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I am aware that foreign matches are being supplied to the House of Commons. The present contract expires on the 31st May next, and I will certainly give full weight to the Hon. Members suggestion before entering into a new contract.

Lieut.-Colonel WHITE: When was this contract made?

Mr. THURTLE: Is not the House of Commons prepared to receive light from whatever source it may come?

Mr. HARDIE: Is the House aware that when Members go to the Dining Room they are supplied with foreign meat, foreign tea, foreign butter and foreign sugar, and are we going to see that we are supplied with good, wholesome homegrown food?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should try to get himself appointed to the Kitchen Committee.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: Will the hon. Gentleman when he replaces the matches also replace the foreign-made globes on
the electric lamps on the writing tables? They are all marked "Made in Germany and Bohemia."

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

OFFICE OF WORKS (BONUS).

Mr. AMMON: 57.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether the reassessment of the balance of civil pay of certain grades in the Office of Works has now been readjusted on the basis of the bonus which the officers in question would have received had they remained in a civil capacity, in accordance with the recent legal decisions as accepted by His Majesty's Government?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Claims are now being examined and payment of sums-due will shortly be made.

TRADE UNIONS (MEMBERSHIP).

Mr. AMMON: 63.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if any Government Departments require an explicit relinquishment of trade union membership from all candidates for posts on the establishment?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Guinness): There are no general regulations on this matter, which is within the discretion of the heads of Departments. There is no regulation requiring candidates for posts on the establishment to relinquish trade union membership in any of the Departments immediately subordinate to the Treasury.

Mr. AMMON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some such condition is imposed by the War Office?

Mr. GUINNESS: This is a matter within the discretion of the head of the Department, and I am sorry that I am not familiar with all the details of administration.

SPRINGBURN POST OFFICE.

Mr. HARDIE: 49.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the post office in Spring burn is inadequate for the business done and will he state how soon more commodious premises will be provided?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson): I am aware that the space in the Spring burn Town sub-office premises is restricted: but, unfortunately, it has not been possible to obtain more commodious accommodation at a reasonable rent. The lease of the existing office has been renewed until Whit-Sunday of next year only, in the hope that by that date the search which is being maintained for larger premises may have proved successful.

Mr. HARDIE: Has inquiry been made regarding three other sites which have recently been disposed of close to the present Post Office, and, further, is the hon. Gentleman aware that the living and working conditions inside the post (Ace as at present arranged are far from being healthy?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I am quite aware that the conditions in the office at present are not good. As regards the first question, I have no doubt those propositions were considered. If the hon. Member will address me a further question in regard to details I shall be happy to give him an answer.

Mr. HARDIE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that certain sites have been acquired for picture houses and entertainment businesses which could have been got quite, easily for the post office, and why did he not get them?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better put that question down.

OXALIC ACID.

Mr. MacKENZIE LIVINGSTONE: 50.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether users of oxalic acid still have to pay an import duty, although this commodity is no longer manufactured in this country?

Sir B. CHADWICK: Duty is chargeable on all oxalic acid imported into this country when not of Empire origin. The manufacture of that commodity in this country has been in suspense for some time, but I understand that preparations are now being made for its production here by a new process.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Do we understand that the duty on this acid has had no effect on manufacture in this country at all?

POLICE AND PRISON SERVICES.

Major HORE-BELISHA: 54.
asked the Home Secretary whether he will consider the setting up of an appeal tribunal for the officers of the police and prison services?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: As stated in reply to previous questions. my right hon. Friend is giving the whole question his careful consideration, but he is not yet in a position to make any statement.

POLICE PENSIONERS.

Major HORE-BELISHA: 55.
asked the Home Secretary, with reference to his offer specially to consider the case of those police pensioners who were advised to retire from the service prior to the new scale of pensions which came into force in April, 1919, how many applications his Department has received for such special consideration; whether he has been able in any case to arrive at a decision favourable to those concerned; and whether he will state what the estimated cost would be of making a general concession in this matter?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: So far as I can discover, no such oases have been brought to my right hon. Friend's notice since his promise to the hon. Member. Two cases, and only two, had come to light previously in which a pensioner's retirement had been advanced at the instance of the police authority or the Chief Officer of Police, and in both these cases the pension has been re-assessed by the police authority, with the Secretary of State's concurrence. I do not know on what basis it is suggested that any further concessions should be made, and I am unable to give any figure in reply to the last part of the question.

Major HORE-BELISHA: Is it not within the recollection of the hon. Gentleman's Department that I have sent in many such calks, and cannot the Secretary of State see to it that those who retired a few days previous to the increase in pensions may in some cases have the benefit of it where the hardship is particularly great?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: That is just my difficulty. I understand that no cases have been sent in by the hon. and gallant
Gentleman. If he has sent in cases they do not seem to have reached the Department. Perhaps he will send them again.

Sir JAMES REMNANT: Has my hon. Friend's attention been drawn to the fact that a great many of these men were asked by the authorities to retire on 31st March in order that the younger men who had gone to the Front might come back to the service at once and so save increasing the whole number of the Force, and, if so, does he not consider that that is a case which should be favourably considered by the Home Office?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will send any special cases he has in mind to the Home Office.

Sir J. REMNANT: I have sent them.

BIRTHS IN PRISON.

Colonel DAY: 58.
asked the Home Secretary how many children have been born in prison during the year ending-31st December, 1924; and whether he will consider the provision of extra food and nourishment for expectant and nursing mothers whilst in prison?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: It will take a short time to obtain the information as to the number of births. Inquiry is being made. Extra, or special, diet is provided for all expectant and nursing mothers.

Captain GEE: From the humanitarian point of view, will the hon. Gentleman make provision that these children shall be born elsewhere than in gaol?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: It would require legislation to carry that out.

Captain GEE: Will my hon. Friend introduce legislation?

Mr. LANSBURY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that one of the Poplar women prisoners was permitted to leave prison because of the condition in which she was?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: When the confinement is going to take place at the end of a sentence, the mother is released.

Mr. LANSBURY: There was no sentence here. They were kept sine die.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: There is no power at present to order a general release in such cases. Legislation is required.

Mr. LANSBURY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Home Secretary, during the period the Poplar prisoners were in gaol, allowed one of them to go out for this particular purpose?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better put that question down.

TRADE UNIONS (POLITICAL FUNDS).

Captain WATERHOUSE: 59.
asked the Home Secretary the number of trade unionists who have contracted out of payment to the political fund of their union?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given to a question by the hon. and gallant Member for Leith on Tuesday last—see columns 1779–1786 of the OFFICIAL REPORT,

Captain WATERHOUSE: Did not the figures given in the answer referred to set out the numbers of trade unionists who were exempt from political levy, and not the number that had claimed exemption, and), as it not true that these figures have nothing whatever to do with contracting out?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I thought that that would cover the same question. If it does not cover the same question, perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will be kind enough to put down a further question for Thursday.

ROBERT OULAGI (SENTENCE).

Mr. SCURR: 60.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the sentence imposed on Robert Oulagi, a boy of 18 years of age, at the Old Bailey on the 26th February; and if he will cause an inquiry to be held into the mental and physical condition of the prisoner before the punishment of 20 strokes with the cat is carried out?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I have received reports showing that there is no medical reason why the sentence of the Court on this prisoner should not be
carried out. It will not of course be carried out until the expiration of the 10 days within which the prisoner may apply to the Court of Criminal Appeal.

Mr. SCURR: Is the hon. Member aware that the Judge in passing sentence said that he had to pay no attention to the abnormal condition of the prisoner's mind but simply to carry out the law. Is the hon. Member aware that there is considerable evidence that this prisoner is. absolutely abnormal?

Mr. BANKS: Would it not be better if hon. Members confined their attention to keeping gentlemen with this sort of name out of the country rather than attempting to secure remission of punishment for them?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I should like to answer the question of the hon. Member opposite. The honorary medical officer of Brixton Prison has reported very fully on this case. He has reported that the prisoner is sane, that he is in robust physical health and condition, that his general bodily and mental development is far in advance of his actual age, and that in this case there is no evidence of epilepsy and he cannot come to any other conclusion than that Oulagi is quite sane and responsible for his actions.

Mr. SCURR: I beg to give notice that I will raise this question on the Adjournment to-morrow.

Mr. PENNY: Is it not possible for the Home Secretary to make some regulation in regard to the censorship of films which induce lads to do these things?

LIGHTHOUSES (BUCKINGHAM PALACE ROADWAY).

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 61.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, how long it is proposed to continue the trial of the miniature lighthouses with blinking red lights in the roadway in front of Buckingham Palace; if he is aware that the said lighthouses are filled with highly compressed gas; and, in view of the serious consequences which would in all probability occur in the event of a vehicle colliding with one of the lighthouses, will he take steps to have these obstructions removed at an early date?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON (on, behalf of the First Commissioner of Works): It is proposed to remove these flashing lights within the next few weeks and to replace them by lamps of a non-flashing type.

Sir W. DAVISON: Can the hon. Member tell me whether any significance is to be attached to the fact that these lights blinked green during the late Administration, and that since the present Government came into power they have blinked red?

Captain BRASS: Could the hon. Member say whether the non-flashing lamps will remain alight during the day time as the present ones do, or only be illuminated at night?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I do not think so

EX-SERVICE MEN (CIVIL SERVICE).

Major CRAWFURD: 64.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action the Government propose to take to safeguard the claims of those who will remain temporary clerks, in view of the fact that in some departments the present volume of work will exist for some years, and if these men will be superseded by the writing assistant class or by the normal entrant by means of open competitive examinations?

Mr. GUINNESS: I am sending to the hon. Member a copy of the memorandum setting out the arrangements agreed as a final settlement of the claims of ex-service men now temporarily employed to permanent retention in the Civil Service.

Major CRAWFURD: 65.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the terms of reference placed before the temporary staffs associations in respect of the recent settlement of the claims of the temporary staffs in the Civil Service; and were the terms of reference submitted to all associations representing ex-service temporary staffs?

Mr. GUINNESS: I do not follow what is meant by "terms of reference" in the hon. Member's question. The agreement in question was negotiated as a settlement of the claims made on behalf of ex-service men temporarily employed in the Civil Service by the Association of Ex-Service Civil Servants.

Mr. AMMON: Is it to be understood that the operation of the agreement is suspended until the discussion has taken place in this House?

Mr. GUINNESS: I understand that the discussion is likely to take place quite shortly, and that there is no question of the examination recommended in the Southborough Report being possible for many weeks to come.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: Does not the position go beyond that, and that according to the Prime Minister's promise the agreement will not be applied in any shape or form until the discussion has taken place here?

Mr. GUINNESS: I think that is the inference from what I have just said, because nothing as to permanency can take place under the agreement until the result of the Southborough examination is known. The Southborough examination cannot possibly be arranged to take place for many weeks to come. Halls have to be hired and notices given.

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: Is it not a fact that some of the men are being refused permission to sit for this examination, and cannot we have the discussion so that these men who are in the meantime being refused permission to sit will, after the discussion, be able to obtain permission?

Mr. GUINNESS: The proposal is to retain the qualification laid down in the Southborough Report for sitting at the examination. All these matters can be brought up when the Debate takes place.

ROYAL COMMISSION ON FOOD PRICES.

Mr. LANSBURY: 66.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether any member of the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into food prices receives any remuneration for their services, either in the form of allowances for expenses, loss of time, or in any other way?

Mr. GUINNESS: No member of the Royal Commission on Food Prices receives remuneration for his services. Under the general rules applicable to all commissions, the members are entitled to
claim necessary travelling expenses and subsistence allowance when away from home at the authorised rates.

Sir J. REMNANT: Is it not a fact that there are some members of the Commission who are already in receipt of salaries from the Government?

Mr. GUINNESS: I will look into that.

Mr. LANSBURY: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the statement in the Press that Sir Auckland Geddes is being paid at the rate of £1,500 a year as Chairman of the Commission?

Mr. GUINNESS: I have definitely stated in my answer that no one is being paid a salary.

Sir HENRY CRAIK: Is there anything to prevent a civil servant from being chosen to serve on a Commission quite independently of the question of his official salary

Mr. GUINNESS: That point is not raised in the question on the Paper which deals with remuneration for work on the Commission.

Sir H. CRAIK: The question I asked was whether there is anything to prevent a salaried member of the Civil Service from being chosen to sit on a Commission?

Mr. GUINNESS: No, that is quite a usual procedure.

Captain ARTHUR EVANS: Is it not a fact that the gentleman concerned has denied that he is in receipt of any salary from the Government?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

CYCLES (REAR LIGHTS).

Mr. GROVES: 67.
asked the Minister of Transport whether any local authorities or other bodies have made representations to him respecting the provision of red rear lights on all cycles and motor-cycles; and whether he proposes to adopt such as a Regulation.

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel As hley): I would refer the hon. l'fXember to, the answer which I gave on the 16th February to the hon. Member for York, of which I am sending him a copy.

OMNIBUS TRAFFIC RETURNS.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: 68.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the fact that the demand made in Form L.T.4 upon omnibus proprietors for a return of the number of tickets issued during each month, thereby disclosing each proprietor's drawings, is unprecedented and beyond the demands of the Income Tax Commissioners upon any business, he will withdraw the said form; and what guarantee can he give that the data obtained by this form, if persisted in, will not leak out to competing lines of omnibuses?

Colonel ASHLEY: As I stated to my hon. and learned Friend on the 24th of last month, the particulars to which he refers are required so that the volume of traffic on each route in relation to the number of omnibuses engaged may be ascertained. I do not consider that the requirements of this return are unreasonable or that the fears which he expresses are well grounded.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that it is a monstrous thing for a. Government Department to ask a man to give these particulars, which is more than is asked by the Commissioners of Income Tax; and is he aware that it is regarded with the deepest suspicion and dislike by all the independent omnibus owners, who are of opinion that this inquiry from the Ministry of Transport will injure them and ultimately benefit the monopoly combine?

Colonel ASHLEY: This return was agreed between the representatives of the London General Omnibus Company and the independent omnibus proprietors. They both agreed that this was the most reasonable form in which the information could be obtained.

MOTOR-CARS (TAXATION).

Sir FRANK SANDERSON: 69.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, in place of the rebate at present allowed in the case of pre-1913 motor-cars, which is based not upon the age of the engine but the type of construction, he will consider the reduction by means of a sliding scale of tax based on the age of the engine; and whether he is aware that the existing high tax imposed on old motorcars is frequently in excess of the market value of the car and has a direct bearing upon the automobile industry?

Colonel ASHLEY: A proposal to frame a system of motor licence duties on the lines indicated by my hon. Friend was considered by the Departmental Committee, who were unable to recommend its adoption. I do not know of any evidence that would lead me to suppose that an old car does less damage to roads than a new one, nor can I accept the suggestion contained in the second part of my hon. Friend's question.

Captain BRASS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, as the motor tax is based on the damage done to the roads, an old and consequently less efficient engine produces less horse-power and does less damage than a new one?

Captain WATERHOUSE: Has the right hon. Gentleman had under consideration the putting of the tax on petrol instead of on motor-cars?

EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.

Major CRAWFURD: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the number of emigrants from this country to the Dominions and overseas possessions of the Crown during the periods, 1905-14 and 1914-24, respectively, and the average cost per 1,000 to the taxpayers of this country in respect of the two periods?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Particulars of the numbers of emigrants, as distinct from passengers, were not obtained before 1st April, 1912. The balance outward of passengers of British nationality from the United Kingdom to all British possessions (the only measure available for both periods specified in the question) was 1,284,801 in the 10 years 1905-1914 and 553,808 in the 11 years 1914-1924. No State assistance to migrants was available prior to the 8th April, 1919, when 'the Government free passage scheme for ex-service men and women and their dependents came into operation. Under this scheme, which was closed on the 31st December, 1922, 86,027 migrants were assisted to settle in the Oversea Dominions, at a cost of £2,418,263—an average cost per head of approximately £28. The Empire Settlement Act came into operation in 1922, and under schemes arranged with the Oversea Governments under that Act, 85,929 persons have been assisted to proceed overseas up to the 31st December,
1924, at a cost to the Imperial Government up to date of £710,656—an average of £8¼ This figure will be slightly increased when certain contributions for which His Majesty's Government are liable in respect of certain land settlement schemes have been presented.

Major CRAWFURD: Am I to understand that before 1919 there was no expense involved to the British Government in respect of emigration

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Quite true.

BILLS PRESENTED.

ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL,

"to provide for the further relief of His Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects," presented by Mr. BLUNDELL; supported by Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph Nall, Mr. Dennis Herbert, Major Kindersley, Sir Victor Warrender, Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Charleton, and Mr. Haden Guest; to be read a Second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 85.]

ROADS IMPROVEMENT BILL,

"to make further provision for the improvement of roads; and for purposes connected therewith," presented by Colonel ASHLEY; supported by Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 86.]

CRIMINAL JUSTICE BILL,

"to amend the law with respect to the administration of criminal justice in England, and otherwise to amend the criminal law," presented by Sir WILLIAM JOYNSON-IIICRS; supported by Mr. Attorney-General, Mr. Solicitor-General, and Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 87.]

MONEYLENDERS (AMENDMENT) BILL,

"to amend the law with respect to persons carrying on business as moneylenders; and for other purposes relating thereto," presented by Mr. WELLS; supported by Sir William Davison, Lieut.-Colonel Pownall, Mr. William Graham, Mr. Trevelyan Thomson, Captain T. J. O'Connor, and Major Edmondson; to be read a Second time upon Friday, and be printed. [Bill 88.]

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE A.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee A: Brigadier-General Sir Henry Page Croft and Mr. Foot Mitchell; and had appointed in substitution: Lord Erskine and Mr. Robert Hudson.

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B (added in respect of the British Sugar (Subsidy) Bill, the Importation of Pedigree Animals Bill, and the Agricultural Returns Bill): Sir John Gilmour; and had appointed in substitution: Captain Elliot.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B: Mr. Benjamin Smith; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Wignall.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — TRADE FACILITIES BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."—[Mr. Guinness.]

Colonel WEDGWOOD: During the earlier stages of this Bill certain points were raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) and, no doubt, before this Debate closes, we shall have a reply to the questions which he then raised, and which I wish to emphasise. This Bill is a form of legislation which, like the unemployment which it is intended to relieve, is becoming chronic. It is intended to facilitate the supply of capital. The idea behind it is that the State can facilitate the supply of capital, hasten its use and direct its employment in certain directions, but I think that we are all agreed that it does not in the long run make more capital available for industry. We accumulate in this country annually a total sum available for investment purposes. The savings last year were alleged to have been £223,000,000, but indeed it is very difficult to say what the total savings are. When you make allowance for the amount that goes automatically into business in the way of improved machinery, I do not suppose there is much more than £200,000,000 available for investment. This Bill does not increase that sum. What it does is to direct the industry into which some of those savings shall be put, and you hasten the use of the national savings by stimulating an earlier investment in industry.
But the productive industry of this country does not depend upon capital alone. Capital has an important function in the productive industries of this country. But to any form of production three elements are essential—capital, which we would like to have increased in order that it might be cheaper in price; labour, of which the supply, unfortunately, is only too adequate; and land. You do nothing by this Bill to render available larger supplies of land and raw materials. The third element in production, therefore, is not touched. If right hon. Gentlemen opposite are
seriously anxious to increase the productive work of this country they must take account, not merely of capital, but of every other essential to productive work, the supply of land and raw materials available for use. We are by this Bill directing the industries in which capital shall be employed. The right hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. Hilton Young) put the point perfectly accurate, or at least put one side of it, when he said that this legislation reduces the cost of capital to certain industries. All that I wish the House to observe, in connection with that, is that there is a corollary to that statement, namely, that this legislation increases the cost of capital in other industries. If there is a definite supply of capital available, you cannot increase it to certain industries without decreasing it for other industries. Yet, in spite of that, I think a case can be made out for this Bill. I think it can be justified in that it secures a more productive use for capital.
That is one of the points which ought certainly to be inquired into, if legislation of this character is to become a permanent feature in administration. For instance, if you want to get the State directing the use of capital in more productive directions, you must be quite certain what are more productive directions. It might be more advisable to have the limited capital at our disposal invested in such works as great centralised electric power systems throughout the country. in transport, roads, ships, and even brickfields. Those are all forms of investment which make it easier to produce hereafter. Therefore, they have an ultimate effect beneficial to the whole industry of the country. But it is not merely that you might direct the use of capital into more productive channels. There is also the argument., used very formidably, I think, in favour of this legislation, that it hastens the use of capital, that whereas if no such legislation were passed, deposits in the banks would pile up until the rate of interest fell to such a level that speculation became profitable when the boom followed the slump—that whereas that piling up of deposits might take years to develop before the boom came, it is possible by this legislation to make that capital fructify at an earlier date. It is a problem that we have to consider. I
am not certain whether this legislation definitely has that effect or not, but that is an argument that I have heard used in favour of it very often, and I think it is certainly one of the questions into which inquiry ought to be made. At any rate, at the present time we must say that this possibility of the earlier fructifying of capital is an argument in favour of legislation of this kind, and is one of the strongest arguments.
Let us cue quite clear about this, how ever. All this new action of the State is no cure for unemployment. It does not definitely make more work in the country. All that it does, even if this earlier fructifying of capital is a sound argument, is lo hasten employment at the expense of a possible boom in employment hereafter. In fact over a period of years there is no more employment and no more production, but at the moment there may be more employment and more production at the expense of a slackening down hereafter. In other words, this legislation amounts to no more than directed temporary inflation, and in so far as your unemployment is exceptionable, directed temporary inflation of this character may be a desirable method of getting round our difficulties. Again, I come back to this—that labour, the wealth producer, is still far off from the raw materials and is artificially prevented by our legislation from producing the goods that we want, and from creating that capital, the larger supply of which is desirable for the trade of the country. If there is anyone here, either the right hon. Member for Norwich or any other, who believes that this legislation will reduce unemployment by making fresh work which otherwise would not be provided, let us make it quite clear that if that were true we ought to be providing, not £70,000,000 but £700,000,000, in order to carry through that good work. But I think that all people who have studied the finance of this question must realise that it is merely anticipating employment which would otherwise take place further on.
I want the House to look for one moment at this question from the Socialist point of view. It is to that point of view that we on this side of the House have to pay special attention. If we look at this new development from that point of view, the first thing that we want to make quite clear is that the security for the State
must be assured in every one of these cases. The State is taking on banking and the work of the financier, as was mentioned the other day. The State is taking on, for the first- time, banking and the financing of industry. If that is so, we on these benches desire that the State shall make a success of it. We do not want to have bad Socialism; we want good, sound Socialism. We are not content to take on the financing of banks' cast-offs. Every loss incurred under this scheme will he used as an argument against collective control of industry. Over and over again schemes like this have been brought forward by hon. Members opposite for extending the powers of the State. They 4.0 P.M. are advocating these things, but every time one of these schemes goes wrong they always turn round and say, "Ah, see the result of your Socialism." There was a typical case in Glasgow the other day. The Glasgow Town Council bought a brickfield in order to meet the urgent. need for bricks in Glasgow. The Committee. which decided on the purchase, had on is my right hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) and four other gentlemen who in opinion were opposed to him. After some time it was found that the brickfield did not pay, and the idea had to be given up and the property sold. Immediately, everybody turned round on that solitary member of the Committee and said, "You are responsible; this is an example of what you would lead us into." We do not want this sort of unfair charge brought against us for any failures which may take place under this scheme. Therefore, we say, if you are going in for Socialist financing, then let it be sound. I know that very few losses, if any, have taken place up to now. I think there was one solitary loss of £4,000. But you cannot judge whether a scheme is sound over a few years. Most of the risks will not be incurred for many years hence. It is a question really similar to the risks run by underwriters. The risks do not mature for many years after the actual underwriting has taken place, and we cannot be certain for years hence whether the return of the capital will, as we hope, be made.
You cannot judge from the working of the scheme up till now, and I do think
that any inquiry ought to make quite certain, first and foremost, that this financing is on sound lines, that we arc not taking on unnecessary risks, that the State is not liable to be mulcted for heavy damages for what it has underwritten, and, above all, that this Socialist experiment shall not be damned by wild-cat finance. I do not think that there is much likelihood of wild-cat finance with the Treasury officials, but they would be in a better position to resist some of these claims made upon them if they had behind them the Report of a Committee of Inquiry directed towards ensuring that such finance as is undertaken shall be on thoroughly sound lines. But if this legislation has come to stay an inquiry on many other points has got to be undertaken. The right hon. Member for Norwich put what we all feel about it when he said that this is a very experimental region of legislation and administration. It is a new departure which may grow to enormous dimensions. This was what brought my right hon Friend the Member for Central Edinburgh to his feet the other day. My right hon. Friend, when he asks a question, does not ask it without sound knowledge of the problem concerned, and he does not speak from these benches without authority. He put these questions, and I was indeed very sorry, when the Financial Secretary to the Treasury came to reply later on, that he made no reference whatever to the very pertinent questions that had been put to him. Really, before this Debate closes, we must have a definite statement from him as to whether he is prepared to meet these very reasonable questions and this very reasonable request for an inquiry into the methods employed under this series of Bills.
The point put by my right hon. Friend was that we should have part of the assets which we helped to create: that is to say. that the public should have part. of the assets which the public helps to create. At the present moment you are conferring public benefits upon selected private persons. There is no getting away from it. They are enabled to get money at a lower rate of interest than they would otherwise be able to do. Beyond that, you are imposing upon the community as a whole a contingent liability for the benefit of some. This
cannot go on indefinitely. We passed a lot of temporary, wild legislation during the years of the War and after, but, if we are going to make this part of our normal legislation and administration, we have got to stop that sort of thing. In the past, public control has always gone with grants of public money. Moreover, if only to avoid injustice, the State should secure the best terms possible in the case of each applicant. Otherwise, you will undoubtedly sooner or later get charges of favouritism. It may be that these charges will be absolutely unfounded, but in the interests of the Civil Service and of the Committee 1 ask that there shall be no possible ground for favouritism by putting the State into a position to make the best terms possible in each case. We have seen quite recently how, in Germany. finance has got mixed up with big business, and you have these terrible Barmat scandals going on. The inquiry we desire would be one that would prevent any such scandal going on by preventing the State from being able to put money into private pockets and by seeing that the State makes good business of all the financial transactions into which it goes.
The following are the points which I think ought to be inquired into. First, of all, security. I have dealt with that, and 1 shall have a word or two further to say on it later on. Then, the direction in which capital should be deflected. It should be in the direction of works that will facilitate further production rather than in the direction of works which merely provide an article of general use. I think my hon. Friends behind me will be prepared to say that when you are directing the investment of capital it is desirable that that capital should be directed towards investment in those particular forms of production where at the present time you have rings and combines and monopolies existing. The investment of capital, indeed, might be directed towards breaking by competition those rings which are at present injurious. Take, for instance, the Light Castings ring. If we are going to get our houses built more cheaply. the Light Castings ring is one which we should be able to deal with by directing a fresh investment of money in that quarter. The same thing applies to brickfields. I see that there has been a certain amount
of money invested in new brickfields, for the sound reason that by increasing competition you break the ring and the power of the existing monopoly. I am not at all certain that inquiry in that direction would not open up a very fruit. ful field of investment which would benefit, not only the workers in that trade, but the community as a, whole by bringing down the price of the monopolised article.
At the present time you have this money being invested, roughly speaking, in a few definite ways. In the first place, local authorities, which, if there be any cheap money going, ought to get the the first call, get very little. The reason for that is perfectly obvious. Of course, the local authorities are themselves able to borrow, through the local loans, at a very reasonable rate. Still, I ask the House to observe that when a local authority goes to the Local Loans Commissioners for money, they have to pay a higher rate of interest than they would have to pay if they were getting money under the Trade Facilities Act. A slightly higher rate of interest is required. Therefore, the question to which I am coming-later on of a consolidated loan for trade facilities bears upon that point. The bulk of the credits under this scheme go to what are called public utility companies. A public utility company in many ways is in direct competition with the municipality and local authority. A public utility company is putting up gasworks or an electricity power station, or works of that nature, which are sometimes undertaken by a local authority and sometimes by a private concern. I do not think it is right that a public utility company in competition with the public authority should get money at a lower rate of interest than the public authority can get it to-day. I quite agree that this is a productive form of enterprise which should be encouraged. But I think we ought to see that they do not get their money at a lower rate of interest than the public authority and are not able, therefore, to undercut them in their efforts to supply the public need.
Moreover, I think it is a subject for inquiry as to whether, when money is lent to a public utility society, we ought not to insist on having a clause in the charter of that public utility society enabling the
public to acquire the business after a period of years on better terms than the public could otherwise obtain it. We all know how often a local authority has to take over some of these public utility societies, and very often has to pay a very excessive price for a very old concern. If these societies, which have these gas and electricity works, are going to get cheap money from the State, we have a right to demand that they should have a clause in their charter limiting the amount of compensation that has to be paid when they are acquired by the community. With public utility companies, I would also class co-operative societies. I notice that up to the present there have been no advances made either to the Wholesale Co-operative Society or to any co-operative society.

Sir JOHN MARRIOTT: Have they applied?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: They are at present borrowing at 5 or 5½ per cent. I hope, if any co-operative society, or the Wholesale Co-operative Society, desire any extension of factories or any extension involving capital expenditure, that they will be in at least as good a position as any private concern to get advances under this Trade Facilities Act. Seeing that they are of the nature of non-capitalist concerns and of anti-trust concerns, we want to see that they get at least as fair a deal and as good an opportunity as any other concern in the country. Then we come to the question of the small men. A number of hon. Members have got up and urged that facilities should he given to small men to acquire advances under this Act. I have gone carefully through the whole of the list, and I find only five credits under£10,000 each, and one of these, by the way, has gone bankrupt. But, although only five grants have been made, I should think that for every one of them there must have been at least 200 applicants from small men for credits. I am bound to say I do not think it practicable to apply this scheme to small men. The difficulty is that they cannot offer the same security as the established firms. Most of these, small firms are one-man concerns depending upon an individual. His life, his health form part of the security, which makes it much more difficult to be quite satisfied that the
security is adequate. Not only so, but the costs of an inquiry into a loan of £100 or £200 are nearly as great as those of an inquiry into the grant of a credit of £100,000.
I would, assuredly, like to see some scheme which would provide credit for the village blacksmith to get an oxyacetylene welding plant fitted up or enable the village carpenter to get labour-saving appliances for his work, but I do not think you can do so under this machinery. That is one of the questions which should be gone into most carefully by this inquiry—to see whether it is practicable to help the small man on economical lines and, at the same time, ensure adequate security for the guarantee. There is one other difficulty in connection with the small man. When you are supporting the small man, the risks of favouritism are infinitely greater than they would be in the case of big concerns. You have more competitors and more people jealous of the one man who gets the credit. Further, if there is any risk of financial instability, and if a State credit is involved in a small firm, how easy would it be to secure the stability of that firm by placing a Government contract in its direction? A boot factory, a printing works, any small concern with £10,000 capital can be made or broken by the granting or withholding of Government contracts. All that is required is for the Treasury to ring up the Stationery Office and say, "If you are placing an order. remember we have a lot- of public money-in such and such a company." These are all difficulties which occur throughout the scheme, but occur more particularly in the case of the small concerns, and they all want watching.
Now I come to a direction which has recently been taken by the Committee and which does seem to offer fruitful possibilities. Recently £2,000,000 has gone to a company in Greece for the development of electric power and transport; another £2,000,000 has, if I remember aright, gone to Poland for a company there for the development of electric power and transport, and a sum of £1,500,000 has gone to Lithuania for the Government railways there. At first I said to myself, "Why on earth are we putting our credit and our cheap money at the use of these
foreigners? The risks are greater and the people who benefit are not our people." I am bound to say on going into the matter more carefully, I am not quite certain that this is not rather a good line, pro vided you consider certain recommendations which I shall make hereafter. if we get British capital and machinery into a place like Athens for traction purposes. it means that all repairs, all developments hereafter, all power station extensions, all extra units, all the work in tic future, has also to come from England. You get your foot in. It is not only an advertisement, but a perpetual goodwill for that form of English manufacture. I am not at all certain that the establishment of the goodwill and the advertisement are not worth the contribution or some part of the contribution which we make. Once you get English capital developing any particular form of public utility in foreign lands, you have the possibilities of a big development for British manufactures in the future in that place. Therefore I have come round to the view that there is something to be said for this sum, amounting approximately to £6,000,000, which we have begun to guarantee for work in those countries.
I have dealt with security and with the direction of capital and I come to another point. I find that nearly half the credit given by this series of Acts has not gone in the form of loans to be floated to the public but has gone in the shape of guaranteeing bank overdrafts. That may be a cheaper way of raising money hut it has this enormous disadvantage, that the bank which secures the guarantee for its overdraft is in a particularly favoured position. This is banking on velvet. I understand they charge for the overdraft more than the guarantee given them by the State, so that they are making the difference a clear profit. There might be arguments in favour of that course, but I do not know what they are. I should certainly say the bank that is guaranteeing an overdraft of £1,500,000 or £2,000,000 for private firms on British Government credit is doing uncommonly good business. We might inquire into that matter and see whether we ought not to avoid any form of guarantee of bank overdrafts. That leads me to the next point. The third thing which should be inquired into by the Committee is whether we should
not have a consolidated loan, a trade facilities loan, similar in character to the local loan, rather than have the series of expensive little flotations which we have recently. Only a week ago we had three—the Stanton Iron Works, North-British. Aluminum; and some other. Each one cost a good deal of money in advertising and underwriting, and these three flotations happened to come together at a bad time. They were floated without any consultation, without any co-ordination, and the result was that the bulk of the stuff was left on the hands of the underwriters. That is a very expensive way of raising money. Surely it would be much better if we raised, say, £10,000,000 a year at the best time for the money market. It would be a much more marketable security, and you would be able to float either at a higher price or a lower rate of interest, and the cost of the flotation would be less. If this kind of legislation has come to stay we shall be driven to do it in that way.
Even supposing we do it in that way, I wish to look a little further. Supposing we raise money at 4¼ per cent.—it might be done on those terms if the loan is placed at the right time—surely we ought then to establish a rate of interest to the various borrowers and the various people who obtain credit. We ought to obtain the best possible rate of interest, or, at any rate, we ought to make an insurance fund against bad debts—an extra half per cent. to cover the cost, to cover insurance, and possibly a higher charge for those foreign corporations which I mentioned just now. Take, for example, the £12,000,000 for the electrical power undertaking in Greece. If it had not been for this scheme, that electrical power undertaking in Athens could not have gone forward at all. They could not then have got the money at any price. They got it at 4½ per cent., and they would have been perfectly willing in my belief to pay 7 per cent., and would have gone on with the scheme just in the same way. The same applies to the Lithuanian Government railways. You cannot borrow money at 4½ per cent. if you are a Lithuanian, not even if you are the Lithuanian Government. Put the British Government in the position of getting the best terms or, at least, of being able to get sufficient to allow of an insurance fund being formed. In that way we should be
getting a share in the assets we create, or else the best terms available in the way of interest.
If the House thinks it would not be practicable to charge a varying rate of interest according to the customer, say, a half per cent. to public utility societies, 2 per cent. to small men, and 3 per cent. extra to the foreign corporation, then surely there are other ways in which the State could participate in the assets created. It might have deferred shares, or ordinary shares. These foreign corporations would be only too glaze to let us have ordinary shares if they knew that otherwise they could not get the loan. We might have some system whereby the rate of interest would increase if the dividends on the ordinary shares exceeded a certain level, and the interest on our credit would go up as the company became more prosperous. All these things should have been thought out when the scheme was first brought into force-. Now that it has become an annual concern, it is certainly high time that such questions should be inquired into. We can either get a higher rate of interest or a participating interest or share or an option on shares. All these are possible methods to get back to the public some of the assets, which the public is creating by a Measure such as this.
I pass to the question of directorship. There the British Government have invested money in the past, they have insisted on having nominated directors to look after their interests as in British Dyestuffs,:1nglo-Persian Oil, and so forth. You have often directors with a controlling voice in the management on behalf of the British Government. I am not certain that we should not consider the advisability of having directors on the boards of companies, who are assisted in this way. There is Harland and Wolff, for instance, receiving a credit of £2,000,000 and no British Government representative on the directorate. There is the company in Athens, and the company in Poland, and the Sudan Plantation Company, with no Government representatives on the directorate. I do riot think it is a matter to be decided without very careful inquiry. There have been cases of credits given under this scheme where, directors have been appointed. I think it has generally been done in the case of the smaller schemes, but. before we con-
sider whether it is advisable or not, we have to consider what the functions these directors should be. Are they to be on the Board merely for security, or to protect in some way the interests of the consumer and the wage-earner. Is it to be their function to keep down prices and to prevent rings and monopolies, or are they to act as ordinary directors? These points have to be considered before we make up our minds that we will not give British credit without putting somebody on the Board to look after the interests, not of the British investor, but of the British public as a whole. The difficulty in regard to directors is to know where to get them. At the present time we usually have ex-Treasury men who can be trusted to carry out the Treasury tradition, but the supply is not by any means inexhaustible, and I am not at all certain that the Committee ought to be able to nominate directors without guidance from the report of an inquiry. There again. favouritism comes in. There are few things one likes more than a directorship. A sum of £200 or £500 per year is not to be sneezed at if you arc an ex-civil servant or anything else. We want guidance in these matters, and we cannot get guidance without inquiry. Moreover it is not fair to leave questions of this importance to unguided officials, however excellent.
Let me sum up. We ask for an inquiry. first, into the sort of work that should be instigated by the guarantee of public credit and as to whether it is to be productive or not secondly, how best to secure security; thirdly, the question of insurance funds, whether we ought not to have an insurance fund built up as a reserve for eventualities and for reinvestment, as an ordinary bank does today; fourthly, the question of a unified loan as against these expensive small flotations; next, whether the rate of interest charged for the credit should be fixed or variable according to the customer; whether we should secure reversionary rights or shares; whether we should appoint directors, in every case or in certain cases; how we can get over the difficulty of giving credits to small men: whether we should go on with this prim ciple of guaranteeing the overdrafts of certain people with certain banks; and,
above all, what we want all these inquiries to lead up to is how the State can reap the advantage of the credit it gives. We, on these benches, are not prepared to go on endowing private enterprise with public credit without securing the benefit to the public and the State.

Mr. E. C. GRENFELL: I do not want to strike a discordant note in the general praise that has been given to this Measure, but the word "annual" fell from the last speaker, and when I hear that there is a possibility of this becoming an annual Bill, to be increased probably year by year, I venture to say a few words to the House. When this Bill was introduced, it was meant Primarily to be an attempt to decrease unemployment, and no one naturally can object to that. At the same time, it was intimated that after the War, when certain companies and firms might have had their resources depleted by the War, this also would directly help them. Now, after several years, this Measure has not sensibly decreased unemployment., and I believe it has had a tendency, and a growing tendency, not really to improve the resources of the big corporations and other companies and firms in the country which did maintain their resources by prudence. I think that in many ways this legislation is being used to encourage new people to compete with the older concerns, new people who have neither knowledge nor experience of these trades, and I think these new people, with very little to lose. will do a good deal of harm to the existing trade of the country.
I was much struck by several of the remarks made by the right hon. Gentleman for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), with which I was in complete agreement. I think it is possible that there might he some charge in the terms towards insurance, so that certain losses incurred on some of the loans might be covered. I think also he was justified in suggesting that, if many loans, each of a comparatively small amount, are to he made, they should be made under one heading. The expense of issuing would be less, and, at the same time, they would become a much more negotiable security, and they would be more acceptable to banks and to ordinary holders. Anyone knows that, if there is a small, gilt-edged loan of.£1,000,000 on the market, it is
very unnegotiable, that you have to look for a buyer, and that the bigger the loan the easier it is to sell or to buy. Several remarks have fallen in this House in criticism of the banks and the bankers, by which I presume is meant the big banks of deposit, the banks receiving deposits and lending part of that money to other concerns. I think it is obvious that the men who have been in that business all their lives, or for generations, must know best what are the terms to help and what is the credit of each individual concerned. They can lend only a proportion of their deposits, and to that extent they are limited in the amount they can advance, but they are the best judges, certainly in small concerns, and when it is suggested that the present Committee, of three, I think, should adjudicate on small loans, I do not think those who make the suggestion are quite aware of the difficulties.
The big banks, and, in fact, the smaller joint stock banks, have probably 7,000 or 8,000 branches throughout the country, and the branch managers or the clerks know the credit of most of the small people in their districts. They know the credit, they advise the head office, and the head office then are able to make small loans. 1 t is inconceivable that three men, however good, three just men with great experience, or ten times three just men, could possibly adjudicate on the many loans that are presented, especially when small loans are to be made, and in addition to that I feel that immense pressure would be brought from all quarters on this Committee to make these loans. I can conceive of 600 Members of this House presenting some hundreds of representations to the Committee for small customers, and the Committee themselves being swamped with applications. I think the matter of small loans must be left where it is, in the hands of the banks, and not put in the hands of this Committee.
I notice one criticism that is frequently made in this House, and made as lately as last week by the hon. Member for East Newcastle-on-Tyne (Mr. Connolly), in which he said that this small Committee, the Treasury Committee, was composed, and had been composed, entirely of bankers. I think we should correct that, because, as far as I know, this small committee has no
bankers on it, and has never had any bankers on it. Although we have heard that repeated often, I do not know what the general public understands by bankers, but there has never been a banker, or a director of a big deposit bank, on this Committee at all, and, therefore, this Committee has complete independence of the bankers. I should like to refer to a remark that was made by the right hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. Hilton Young). He himself knows probably more about the birth of this legislation than anyone, and he stated that there were two essentials in the Act when it was begun, and that those essentials stood to-day. He said:
The first is not to bolster up with its assistance an industry which is unable, without assistance, to live against competition from other parts of the world because its costs of production are too high. It is no good doing that by State action. An industry which is in that unfortunate position has to find its own level."—(OFFICIAL REPORT. 24th February, 1925; 1798. Vol. 180.]
I think we are all agreed on that, and on that point I would refer to the shipping industry, by which I mean the ship-owning industry to-day. The ship-owning industry is quite able to manage its own affairs if it is left to itself. The shipping industry is suffering from competition from foreigners, who are helped by their low rates and by the exchanges, and yet we are able to put up a fight against them. In addition, the ship owners are faced by competition from Government-owned fleets, and the first I might refer to is the American Government Mercantile Marine. All praise is due to the Americans for having started it, as they did it in the War in order to help the general cause. They built a great many ships, and it is a pity that they have not sunk many of them long ago. They also built other quite serviceable ships, but since the War I doubt if they have lost much less than 500,000,000 dollars, and I think the loss is much in excess of that figure. We pay all due credit to them, because they built their fleet to help themselves and their Allies, but I am sure that, if they would admit it, they must really regret the day when they decided to continue to operate and own those ships.
We have, again, the competition from Australia, and the Australian competition is largely a post-War competition.
The Commonwealth wrote off, in 1923, £8,000,000 for depreciation and loss, and in trading in 1921–22 the loss was £1,000,000, while in 1922–23, in trading, the lose was £1,500,000. That is the small total of about £11,000,000 loss. That is a serious competition which we have had to face, and five of their principal ships, costing £5,000,000, were built after the War. Now, I understand, they are tired of the business and are getting out of it. There is another Dominion that has been in the business, and that is the Canadian Government. Most of their ships were built after the War, and their own Prime Minister, whom, I presume, we may quote, said recently:
The capital expenditure of over 70 million dollars on the construction of the 6-5 ships of the, Government Mercantile Marine, upon which the construction, except in two instances. was commenced after the war ended, was as wilful a waste of public money as any Government of this or any other country was ever guilty of.
Those are in competition with the English shipowners, and it is worse than that, because the Dominions and the foreign Governments are entitled to do an they like. We find one of the gentlemen on the Trade Facilities list making a speech, on the 31st December last, in which he referred to the difficulties of carrying on shipping, and said to his shareholders and to the public:
I am not in a position to disclose what the business is. except that it will materialise within the next few months, and I hope that. in the early Spring, we will he able to see our ships sailing under very much more prosperous conditions than at present prevail—conditions such as most shipping companies are subjected to, dependent. as they are, on the existing low freights. I think I may say that we may be in a much better position, and independent of the general freight market. I have gone so far that I am afraid I cannot go any further, except to say that that is not exactly a prophecy, but almost an accomplished fact.
Almost on the same day, it was announced that, on account of the high freights, the Canadian Government was about to give a subsidy of £250,000 per annum, and it was further announced that this gentleman, Sir William Petersen, was to have 10 ships built for him, of which 50 per cent. of the cost would be borne by the Trade Facilities Act. This gentleman himself has said that the freights now existing arc very low, and that he hopes shortly to be in a position of being in-
dependent of the general freight market. Now, I ask, is it fair to use the British Government guarantee to help a new, possibly a very good, company to arise in competition with the older concerns which have not sought help from the Trade Facilities Act, which have had a very difficult time, which are, as it is known, trading at a loss in many cases, and especially in this particular service? Is it in accord with what the right hon. Member for Norwich said,, that these guarantees fulfil the first essential of which he spoke? There is a second essential of which he also spoke:
The second consideration in the mind of the Advisory Committee in order to carry out the bed-rock principles of the scheme, has always been regarded as this, that they should not waste the asset of public credit which it has to use by giving assistance to undertakings which are in good credit, and which ate perfectly well able to raise the money which they require without any State guarantee at all. That is the second essential."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th February, 1925; cols. 1796–7. Vol. 180.]
I would like to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the right hon. Member for Norwich was correct in saying that that essential stood to-day. Does ho mean that any company which has carefully husbanded its resources, and which has good credit, must go out and borrow at 5½ or 6 per cent., while a. less known or a new or unknown company is to borrow at 4½ per cent. with the Government guarantee I If the answer is that the same support will be given to the established companies as to the new, weak companies, then I suggest we should make that known far and wide, because that is evidently not known to the right hon. Member for Norwich. I think that would be very useful towards clearing the mind of the public on this subject.
I should like to make a few remarks on what the late Financial Secretary said the other day. I believe I have the honour to agree with him in most things, but in one or two things he said that day I am not in entire agreement. He referred to the fact that it might be advisable to have deferred shares in a company, or to appoint directors. I hope that no Government will ever have deferred shares or direct interest in these companies. If the public knows there are Government directors on the board, that the Government have deferred shares or other interest in a company, the credit of
that company will, probably, at first be increased, especially in the minds of the unknowing public. Personally, if I thought the Government were appointing directors who had interest in the shares, I should be much more inclined to sell any interest I had in that company. It is quite true that in the few companies in which past Governments have been interested, such as the Suez Canal, we have nominated a certain number of directors. I am not sure even in that connection it has been of much use to the British Government, because I fancy the French Government have been very careful to keep control, and, in some cases, to speak in French, which is not always understood, even by Government directors.
At the same time, if you are going to appoint directors to these numerous companies, to which we have guaranteed loans, it will be extremely difficult to find suitable men. You will find any number of guinea pigs, any number of people who will want salaries, and who, will go about very proud of themselves as Government directors, but I think you will also find that these positions will be looked upon as fine plums to get from the Government. There will be all sorts of inducements to jobbery in the appointments, and when the Government have appointed men, as I know in the past, it has been considered almost' an outrage, a robbery, if the Government get rid of a man because he is not suitable, or because they have some other men they want to put in. I think you will raise endless difficulties. You will not get the best men, and you will find them put in the corner and left there by the directors who understand the business. They will be passengers on the coach, and will not be of the slightest use, while, at the same time, the Government will be, in a certain degree, morally responsible for overlooking that concern.
On that basis, I venture to disagree with the previous Financial Secretary. I quite understand that a part of the Opposition are anxious that trade, industry and banking business should be in Government hands. I believe the majority of this House, as it is constituted to-day, are not in favour of such a method. I see a great deal of danger in the process of the Government dry-nursing weak companies. I would leave the Government
to do the Government business. I would not distract their attention by having to think whom they may appoint as suitable directors in these various companies. I would ask them, so far as possible, to leave the trade, industry and banking of the country to the people who are brought up in it. I see no reason to foster the weaker brethren at the expense of their more prudent brothers, though I would wish to strain every nerve-to decrease unemployment. I will, in reference to this Canadian question, give one instance which came to my knowledge only a fortnight ago. The moment it was proposed in the Canadian Parliament to give a subsidy of £250,000 a year, and our Gov-eminent was to give £600,001 advance to the gentlemen who were to build these ships for the Canadian Government, one company with which I am intimately acquainted at once cancelled an order for £1,250,000, which was going straight into a shipping yard. Although I shall not vote against the Second Reading of this Bill, I hope that one year, or two years, hence we shall not hear its extension asked for again.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The speech to which we have just listened does credit, if I may say so, to the City, which sends the hon. Member here, and to the prudence which has established him in the reputation of his fellow financiers of the City. He has dealt with this subject from a business point of view, and with a great knowledge of the difficulties which must arise whenever the State undertakes what is, in effect, a banking business. The right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and his predecessor, when we discussed the Resolution in Committee, agreed with each other that no better means had been found for dealing with the present needs of the unemployed than the machinery of this Act, which we are now asked to extend, and the author of the Act, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Norwich (Mr. Hilton Young), was also loud in his praise of the method in which temporary alleviation has been given to the unemployed in many quarters. But the difficulties which were at once created by these temporary alleviations have been brought out by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, and are well within the knowledge of a large number of us who spend our time in commercial and
industrial undertakings. The position of the Government. is a very difficult one. It is almost impossible for them to deal with advances running up to these gigantic sums through their own officials or without exterior advice. The Committee, which now advises the Government, consists of three men of undoubted probity and good sense. Their characters are beyond reproach, and their judgment in their own business is unrivalled. But they are asked to undertake work which could not be done by any other three men in the country, and cannot be done efficiently by them themselves. The task is far too great.
The case of the small men was urged on the Committee by the right hon. Member for Norwich, and he pressed for a reply from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury as to the facilities which could be extended to the smaller concerns, but I am quite sure that the Financial Secretary had in mind the difficulties which immediately arise, and did not wish to describe them to the House. As he was rather slow in doing so, perhaps he will allow me to add to some of the information given by the last speaker, and to point out to the House how difficult would be the position of the Treasury if it had to deal, not with the scores of cases which come before it now, but with the thousands which would come before it. Undoubtedly, the. small men all over the country who require a little capital for the extension of their business, if they knew that money was to be provided by the Treasury, would be sending in their applications. No questionnaires would be too forbidding to keep them out. Their friends in the House of Commons would find it necessary, in the interests of their political position, to ask for due consideration, and no more, to be given to their small concerns, and that due consideration—and no more—would absorb the time, not of three, or 30, but of 300 gentlemen, all of them highly skilled in banking business, if it was to be done without supporting doubtful concerns, and jeopardising the national credit.
At one time there were some of us who regretted the disappearance of the old private banks, and their absorption by the large joint stock concerns. There is no doubt that the tendency of our time
to conduct commercial and industrial concerns on a very large scale, has rendered it necessary for the reserves of the small banks to be drawn together, but the dying out, or absorption, of the small private bank has had its effect in regard to customers, who were just starting in business, and often had little or nothing to bring to the bank for advances to be made, except their character and known skill. The partners of the bank had grown up in the business, and everyone could keep an eye, not only on the industrial skill of the persons who wished to have advances, but knew something of the way in which they spent their leisure time. All these were matters of the greatest moment, and where a man of good character, who used his time to the best advantage, went to the private banker in old times, and asked for an advance, obviously the banker at first wanted to know what security could be brought. Often the reply was, "I have nothing to bring except my character and knowledge of the trade," and that was often taken as a good reason for a man being given assistance from the old private bank. Many a great concern to-day began in that way.
There was a danger, at one time, of the big joint stock banks being devoid of the local knowledge necessary to make advances on that basis. The big joint stock banks are doing their best to compromise in that matter, and have their managers planted all over the country, keeping them there as long as they can, and trying to accumulate the same private knowledge of the individual customer which used to be possessed by the old private partner. But how can a Government Department do that? If it is difficult for the joint stock hank, it is ten times more difficult for the Treasury. The Department of Overseas Trade cannot do it with regard to export credits, and lands the State in difficulties and losses from time to time. This scheme would also run the Government into interminable loss if it were to embark on the assistance of small and unknown men, who often require the most assistance, without all the knowledge which can be provided only through the elaborate organisation of the joint stock banks. The claim of my right hon. Friend and others to see the small men and small concerns included in this scheme. I believe to be impracticable. I agree with
my right hon. Friend on the Front Opposition Bench that it cannot be done, as we are now told this scheme is devised to provide security with regard to larger concerns. That security varies from time to time in individual trades and in the case of the respective companies. I have looked through this long list of 5.0 P.M. advances and occasional advances have been made to a company to be formed. State assistance to a company being formed smacks of the phraseology of the South Sea bubble. A company "to be formed" appears in nearly every one of these periodic lists. It may be that they are thoroughly sound concerns, with big contracts behind them, but we had an instance given to us by a previous speaker this afternoon of a company which is to formed, with a contract not yet signed, with conditions which are not yet settled by the Government Department which has not yet got authority. Yet, £600,000 of our credit is to be put in the hands of a single gentleman under conditions such as these! There is not a single banker in the City of London worth his salt who would dare to invest his depositors' money under conditions such as this. I do not think it is possible for any one individual to know about the various companies which appear in the list. I have no doubt it is true that these companies which have received assistance under the Trade Facilities Act were not strong enough to obtain the necessary assistance from their own bankers, or not yet sufficiently strongly recommended to induce the public to embark upon the risk involved in the case of such an industrial concern.
The task of the Treasury has been rendered more difficult by the pressure of our time. Let me take a single instance. When hon. Members and Government officials—there were some of us with our individual knowledge—visited the great shipping centres, the Clyde, the Tyne, the Tees, and the Wear, the one thing that was most striking about these great centres was the silence of many of the shipyards. The task before the Government is a big one. How are they to provide work for these ship builders and engineers who are now without it? It is a great temptation to say: "Let us give
more and more of the Government credit for the building of ships in advance of the requirements of the shipping trade." I think the phrase which must necessarily appear in any request made to the Treasury Committee is that "the money is to be used for the construction of vessels in advance of the company's programme." We have been doing that for some time. Vessels have been built in advance of the company's programme for some, years, and these vessels which have been built in advance are, in some instances, tied up to buoys, idle; and they cannot be traded.
One hon. Member above the Gangway the other day suggested that we would be doing a good thing if we destroyed some of the older vessels and replaced them with newer craft. I am afraid that that is not a practicable proposition. Vessels which sail under the British merchant flag are seaworthy vessels. Almost every one of them has been passed either by Lloyd's Register of Shipping, the British Corporation, or the Bureau Veritas. There are scarcely any vessels that are not passed by these three bodies. They are nearly all of the highest class. Every one of these vessels is not only seaworthy, but carries out its trading efficiently. Many go on trading long after they are 25 years of age. I myself sail nearly every year in a vessel which is 50 years old, and I feel perfectly safe. My hon. Friend above the Gangway need not be at all anxious about vessels which are 25 years or over if they are classed at Lloyd's. To destroy these older vessels in order to make way for the newer building is to give an artificial stimulus that will not increase the general volume, but will diminish the volume of national wealth.
It seems that the money we are taking under this Vote—it may not be this year, hut it has certainly been so in the last two or three years—is money which has been taken away from the great fund of national credit, without which British industry and commerce cannot be carried on and extended, and has been spent in the building of vessels which, in many instances, have been quite unnecessary. I would like to point out that the case may be criticised not only on these general grounds but on more particular grounds of considerable importance. In the new questionnaire, which has just been provided, I see the condition is laid
down: "That none of this money is to be used for the completion of work already undertaken." When I run through the list on which grants have been made, I find many cases where hundreds of thousands of pounds have been given out of this fund for the completion of vessels which were lying un- completed; not only so, but some of them have been vessels building for the foreign mercantile marine. Take one very startling case, that of two vessels built by the Lloyd Sabaudo Company, of Italy, which runs on routes from which our own vessels are strictly excluded under Italian law. These vessels are financed under the Trade Facilities Act. The first vessel was half-completed when the first request was made through the Treasury for £600,000 for the completion of this vessel half-completed, quite neglecting the rule which appears in the questionnaire.
The second vessel was not laid down. She was a new contract, also for a foreign company, for the Lloyd Sabaudo Company, to be run in the trade across the Adriatic between Italy and North and South America. in this case these vessels were actually to be used to the exclusion of the Cunard and White Star lines, who run a regular service from Genoa and Naples up to the date of the recent decree. If this is to be the way in which our national ' credit is to be used we shall he giving employment for the completion of these vessels to a point, and we shall exactly at the same time be withdrawing employment from the seafaring classes who run our merchant fleet, and who are being cut out of the service in which they have long served. You will he withdrawing on the one hand what you have granted on the other.
It is a very obvious matter, which must be apparent to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury—he mast have often thought of it—that whether good or bad the security offered, that once the money is expended the service which it renders to the cause of unemployed by employment has conic to an end. Nay, it is even worse than that. I can speak on the authority of the most representative shipping authority in the country, the authority of the Chamber of Shipping—for they have looked into this matter from every point of view and they authorise me
to say it on their behalf—they are opposed to the extension of the Trade Facilities Acts in any form to shipbuilding at the present time. They consider it will have no other influence upon British shipping than to decrease the employment of the men who are engaged in vessels already afloat by prolonging the present depression due to the surplusage of mercantile tonnage.
A list has been prepared by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury of the number of vessels which are laid up. I have taken the trouble to find out exactly how many British vessels are unemployed and generally the difficulties under which they labour. The figure is 781,000 tons. But that is not all. There is in the world laid up just now about 6,000,000 tons of shipping. Of that probably one-half, as the hon. Member for the City (Mr. E. C. Grenfell) pointed out. is under the American flag, built under war conditions. It is not fit for future use, and the sooner it is broken up the better. Outside of that there is something like 3,000,000 tons. That leaves sufficient shipping in the world still laid up. To add to the sum total of that laid-up shipping is, I think, to delay the recovery of the shipbuilding trade, for it must be apparent to anybody that the only permanent cure for unemployment in the shipping industry is to be found in the resumption of merchant shipping activity the wide world over. If the activity of shipping is restored, the wisdom and prudence of shipowners will soon be seen in the number of vessels they will order from British yards.
There is only one further point I should like to make before I leave this subject and it is this: As the. scheme works out at present it really floes from time to time seem to favour those who have no previous experience of the trades in which they wish to embark it does now very frequently give assistance to those who show no prudence at all. The only way trade depression can be met is by provision for it in times of prosperity. and those who have made no such provision in times of prosperity are those who are now applying to the Treasury for assistance. Indeed we penalise those who have shown the desire to make provision for some reserve in times of prosperity to meet times of depression. The newcomers have given no sign of an
ability which they may or may not possess; but we certainly should not give to these concerns because they are now making application, for in times of prosperity they made no provision for the evil day.
The best way that we can devote the money, the capital expenditure to aid the unemployed—the best way I can suggest—is not under these facilities schemes, not by increasing, without due consideration, facilities which are already available in the general competitive trade: not by spending money on capital work and then receiving no further benefit for the unemployed, but by means of work of a more permanent character, as, for instance, in the increased facilities of our great ports and harbours. I commend, very strongly, to the Financial Secretary and to the attention, not only of his Department, but also to the Committee (:). Three, the improvement of the facilities in our ports. There is no way in which we can add more rapidly and more develop cheap carriage and freedom of import and export into this country than through the inducement given to large craft to use our ports in competition with those of other countries. We can do this by deepening our waterways, widening the quays, extending the warehouses, and giving greater railway facilities into these great centres of distribution. Money spent in these ways will be of permanent value to the country. I trust that the Treasury, after the discussion to-day, and the speeches of great importance which have been made on this matter by the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench, and the hon. Member the Member for the City, will give more careful consideration to the safeguards necessary where our national credit is concerned.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Guinness): I do not want to trouble the House with another speech on this well-worn topic. After the criticisms which have been made, I think that the time has now arrived when we can get to the point. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) has answered part of the case put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) as to the difficulty under the scheme in dealing with small
applications. As the right hon. Gentleman has said, the machinery is not well designed for that particular class of cases. We are not against them; but, as a matter of fact the machinery set up was set up as an emergency measure for unemployment. I am sure it will be impossible within the scope of the Trade Facilities machinery to deal on a large scale with this particular and difficult class of applications. We all recognise with pleasure the sympathy which a distinguished director of one of the- great banks has expressed for the small man, and the disadvantage under which he now suffers owing to the disappearance of so many of the small credit under-takings which existed in the past. The right hon. Gentleman criticised instances, which he finds in the record of guarantees offered, where it was stated that the companies were yet to be formed. I do not know how many cases there are, but certainly not more than two or three.

Sir FREDRIC WISE: Two, I think.

Mr. GUINNESS: They are very exceptional cases, and where facilities have been provided it has always been subject to the most stringent- safeguards and the must careful examination of the prospectus and the conditions of issue which may subsequently be put forward to the Committee by the company concerned. The right hon. Gentleman complained of a guarantee which had been given to an Italian firm, the Lloyd Sabaudo Company. He said this was a breach of the general' limitation under which no trade facilities guarantees are- given for work which has already been begun. But this is hardly a case which fell under that limitation, because the ships were abandoned, not a rivet had been driven for 18 months, and the Committee were satisfied that there was no prospect of that work being restarted without a guarantee. The right hon. Gentleman complained that this guarantee was given for the purpose of Italian emigrant traffic, and mentioned that that traffic was kept as a close preserve for Italian shipping. I suggest that is a very good reason for the decision of the Committee to recommend a guarantee, because that limitation ensured that there was not competition with any other British interest, and no other shipping company in this country could in any ways
be damaged. The hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. E. C. Grenfell) mentioned another of these shipping cases, the guarantee which had been promised, under certain conditions, to a company to be floated by Sir William Petersen. That conditional undertaking has now been entirely withdrawn, and the Trade Facilities Committee wrote on the 16th February that they had
learned that the Canadian Government, subject to the approval of the Dominion Parliament, had expressed their willingness to give an annual subsidy of approximately £250,000 to a British company to be formed under your auspices to run ships in competition with existing British lines in. the North Atlantic trade. This fact was not within the knowledge of the Committee when the application for a guarantee of £600,000 was made in January, 1924, and in the circumstances it must regard the new development as if it, were a fresh application to be considered on its merits. I am to add that if the effect of the subsidy being given would prove to be unfair and unreasonable to existing British interests, the Committee would not he likely to recommend the guarantee.
The right hon. Gentleman who opened the' Debate this afternoon made some very interesting suggestions as to changes which ought to be made in the present system, but they were all based on the assumption that we were prepared to make the system permanent. He argued as if this was to be a method of socialising capital. He left entirely out of account that, in the view of the present Government at least, trade facilities were instituted, and are only now justified, to deal with unemployment., and that is why we, as did our predecessors, come to Parliament with proposals for only a temporary Measure.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the right. hon. Gentleman aware. that every Government has said exactly the same thing for four years, and done exactly the same? The right hon. Gentleman himself said that if this increase from £65,000,000 to £70,000,000 is not enough, the demand exceeded£70,000,000, they would be delighted to come before Parliament and ask for more.

Mr. GUINNESS: I said, "If unemployment continued." That is what divides us.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Does the right hon. Gentleman hope it will continue?

Mr. GUINNESS: The right hon. Gentleman can say that other Governments have said the same thing—the Government of which he was a Member said the same thing—and the only difference is that we mean it. We feel that, assuming the trade cycle recurs, it will be most mischievous to make this a permanent feature of our financial system. As the right hon. Gentleman suggested in his speech, there is no fresh industry being created. All you do is to hasten work which otherwise would not be clone until some years hence. If by having a permanent system we were to continue this anticipation, which we justify because we want to start employment in this time of urgency—if we continued that anticipation in times of booming trade, inevitably it would make unemployment much worse when the trade cycle had run full circle and another period of depression supervened. We want to keep this as a temporary Measure, because we believe we should only aggravate the difficulty of unemployment in the future if we allowed this system to go on.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Even a temporary Measure can be a sound one.

Mr. GUINNESS: Exactly. We believe that within its limits this Measure is sound. The right hon. Gentleman wants to widen its scope enormously, and to use it as a means of setting up a great system of State banking on a permanent basis, to provide credit for certain selected industries and for certain fortunate applicants. That is a very different proposal from anything which is in the mind of the present Government. We feel that the scheme, within its limits, is doing useful work, but we do not want to extend it in the very wide, I may say the revolutionary, way which the right hon. Gentleman has suggested. He has criticised the scheme on the ground that certain selected interests are getting an advantage from the State at the expense of their neighbours. Of course, if that were so, it would certainly be true that the Committee were not doing their work efficiently. The State obviously must get a full return and adequate consideration for the advantage which it gives, but I suggest that it is getting that return and consideration by ensuring that work urgently needed now to employ workless
men is done before its economic time, as a result of the slight advantage of the State guarantees which are given. That is the return, that is the consideration which we get; and if in addition to that we are to say that the State is to make a profit out of it, is to charge an extra l per cent., necessarily we are decreasing the amount of consideration which we can act in return for our facilities from those firms which otherwise would have been unable to find employment at this time.
The right hon. Gentleman suggested that dividends should be limited. There 1 agree with him. It is done already. It is a very usual feature of these guarantees to provide that when the standard dividend is reached any surplus shall be divided between the shareholders and the redemption of the guaranteed loan, and the only general exceptions to that system are the cases of public utility societies, and certain shipbuilding companies which, I am sorry to say, are now going through such difficult times that there is net a great likelihood of their reaching the state of paying the high dividends in which such conditions would operate. The right hon. Gentleman has asked us to set up an inquiry to cover a very wide field, a field which would involve the acceptance. of a policy which is far outside the scope of what this Bill was ever intended to tiring about.
The right hon. Gentleman seems to complain that this Bill does not provide credit facilities for local authorities. That. was not its function. Local authorities, if they want credit, go to the Public Works Loans Board, which offers credit at a, lower rate than the trade facilities guarantees would give. The Public Works Loans Board, I believe, at the present time allows borrowing at 4¾ per cent.; and for public utility cases, there is the alternative method offered by the Unemployment Grants Scheme, which works upon a rather different system and guarantees half the loan charges for certain terms of years. The right hon. Gentleman wanted the Government to widen this scheme by-bringing to an end the system of going to the public for separate loans, and, instead, issuing a unified stock. Already I am afraid the credit. demands on industry under this scheme will to some extent affect
the terms of Government securities. I do not want. to pursue that metaphysical point any further, because we discussed it fully on a former occasion. We believe that unified stock would cut into the existing Government loans far more than the present issues made in driblets in a variety of forms to suit different tastes. In view of the fact that we have vast conversion operations to face in the near future, we certainly do not wish to give investors in Government securities a new Government loan which in its security and attraction would be indistinguishable from those existing forms of Government securities which they already possess. It is just for these reasons that not only this Government but also the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Colonel Wedgwood) was a member opposed fresh borrowings, and called upon the community to make heavy sacrifices to bring about the reduction of our State liability.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: This money has to be. raised somehow, and why not raise it in the most economical way?

Mr. GUINNESS: The right hon. Gentleman wants to increase the scope of this Measure.?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Not a bit.

Mr. GUINNESS: We believe that the existing machinery is less objectionable in its competition with Government loans than unified stock, and that is why we do not feel that there is a- case for a wide inquiry as has been suggested by the right hon. Gentleman or for the increase of the scope of this Measure so as to make it provide credit to a larger area of industry than is at present covered by this Measure. The right hon. Gentleman wants us to socialise our resources and let the State direct the flow of credit and of capital. I do not see under those conditions of the terms of reference how we could possibly satisfy both this side of the House and the right hon. Gentleman. We believe as far as possible it is undesirable to go on increasing guaranteed loans in competition with existing forms of State securities and to those who urge otherwise I am compelled to oppose the view that in trade facilities we possess no philosopher's stone which is capable of commuting their
dreams without any further burden on our limited resources into gold. With their due limits, I believe the provision of trade facilities has proved a valuable agent in the alleviation of unemployment. The Committee estimate that no less than 100,000 men arc doing work in this country which would not. have been done here if it had not been for these trade facilities guarantees. I think that. is a very great achievement which justifies us in asking Parliament to renew this Bill framed on its present limited but well-tried machinery. I hope that we may this afternoon without any further delay give this Bill a Second Reading.

Sir F. WISE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman one question. The Lithuanian Government have been granted. a loan for 20 years: Poland Electric a loan for 20 years; and Greece Electric a loan for 20 years. Are these loans guaranteed as to Exchange?

Mr. GUINNESS: Those are sterling loans.

Mr. WILLIAM GRAHAM: I will undertake not to detain the House more than a minute or two, and many of us on this side would not have said more but for the fact that the Financial Secretary has not been able to hold out any promise at all of the kind of inquiry we have requested. I think it is due to the House, and certainly to those sitting on this side who have been critical of this scheme, that. such a request should be made. It is true that my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) indicated a very much wider field of inquiry, all of which is quite appropriate, but I do not think the Financial Secretary has advanced any case for refusing an inquiry into the exact meaning of this scheme as it now stands. We drew attention to the fact that. under this extended Bill there would be a contingent liability for the people of this country of £70,000,000 under the head of trade facilities. Our suggestion was that the time had now arrived when, in view of the practical subsidies we were giving to important departments of private enterprise in this country, we should ask whether we were to have any right in the direction of the scheme or
any part in the capital asset created. That was the request which we made.
What is the first ground put forward by the Financial Secretary for refusing that request? He says that this all along has been regarded as a temporary scheme. It. is true that, if we go back to the early discussions on this subject, we find that it was a temporary proposal to use our credit in order to encourage works of capital expenditure and so provide employment. We. agree that that was the general foundation of the scheme. That, however. does not appear to be a practical reply to this question at. all, because the real test lies in the length of time for which in fact we are giving this credit or guarantee. Many of these schemes were guaranteed for 5, 10, 15 or 20 years, and 1 believe there are schemes in which the period guaranteed goes as far as 50 years. So that, while originally this was a temporary proposal within rather narrow limits in order to help to provide employment, the fact is that for a very long time ahead in this country we have placed a contingent burden upon the masses of our people. No doubt that may be considered a very practical gain to important departments of State.
The Financial Secretary goes on to say that. the return which we shall get in anticipated work for that practical concession is a very valuable one. I am perfectly sure my right hon. Friend will agree on analysis that in regard to a very large number of the schemes embodied in this return many of them cannot be regarded as works of anticipation at all. Many of them were urgently required and overdue, and came forward to get the advantage of Trade Facilities in securing, easier terms in the open market. That is perfectly true of certain large guarantees given in the railway world. After all, there is no particular reason why the railway companies or the railway amalgamations should have deferred the carrying out of these works at all, because they got £51,000,000 under the Act of 1021 for the carrying out 'of all kinds of works, many of them in connection with capital expenditure. In the case of the tube extensions, from Trade Facilities they got guarantees and were able to raise a large sum of money upon comparatively easy terms. On this point I fail to see that what the right hon. Gentleman has stated is an
adequate reply to our point. The only other question I am going to put is this. Is it not fair as a business proposition that we should have something to shown regard to these transactions over and above what I have just described, in the light of the very large financial concessions we are giving? We are all aware of the fact. that these guarantees do not involve the payment of any money. I rather regret the loose way in which terms are used when talking of grants from public funds. There are no grants from public funds, but there is a guarantee, and it is that with which we are concerned this afternoon.
Many schemes have been able to raise money in the open market on easier terms than they could have obtained in their business without guarantees of this kind, therefore it is our duty, as people burdened with a debt of £8,000,000,000, carefully to examine what we are doing. We are extending Trade Facilities and a contingent liability to the extent of £70,000,000. We have a contingent liability of £26,000,000 on the Exports Credits, and we have given a variety of direct subsidies. The actual amount is £5,000,000 for certain schemes of Colonial development. And so I might continue off-hand at this box to give figures which would possibly add up to more than £100,000,000 which either in contingent liability or actual liability we have placed at the disposal of the private enterprise of the time. This raises perhaps the question of public ownership and Socialism, and on that we know that this House is against us by a large majority. Supposing we exclude that controversy altogether and simply view this as a business proposition. Surely no hon. Member, whatever his politics, will argue that he should give his guarantee or subsidy without. some share in the management or the ownership of the concern created. I have not met anybody, least of all anyone from north of the Tweed, who is inclined to conduct business on such lines. I suggest that this is not sound business when we remember the great liability with which we are now struggling.
The Member for the City of London (Mr. E. C. Grenfell)—I want to thank him for many generous references he has made to me in regard to these matters—thought it would be very difficult to get
the requisite directors, and that it would lead to a certain amount of nomination and other undesirable business influence. There is no doubt that if you have a mixture of State activity and private enterprise of this kind it will be difficult to get rid of the kind of criticism which the hon. Gentleman opposite has advanced. There is a great deal of ground for that contention and I do not in the least dispute it. Nomination is always difficult, and there are suggestions of favouritism and of the limitations under which nomination works. Still, my right hon. Friend and predecessor, the Member for Norwich (Mr. Hilton Young), did emphasise the argument that, when we are giving these guarantees, we must be sure that the concern is an efficient one, and it is going to be very difficult to satisfy ourselves that it is an efficient concern unless we have some means of getting inside. It was mainly on that account that I suggested that we should have some place in the management. I do not press that unduly, because it would only be a limited place, since we are giving merely a guarantee, but I do not think we should ignore the possibility altogether, and, accordingly, I retain that part of my case this afternoon.
The case, however, is very much stronger as regards sonic right in the capital assets, because We are to the extent of ½ per cent. or 1 per cent., or whatever it may be—it may be more—making it easier for these private companies to get the accommodation they require. Measured up, that is a direct gift at the expense of the credit of the people of this country, and, while it is true that £70,000,000 is not in the aggregate a very considerable sum, in the light of our total national finance, it is an element, and it is an element for which we have to pay. It is a burden to some extent upon the masses of the people, and, therefore, a concession to this private enterprise. We do not get the full return, I think, in the way the Financial Secretary has suggested. We are' entitled to rather more than that. There are many precedents for having taken either some form of share or some other right in the asset created, and I suggest that, as this is bound for all practical purposes to be permanent, at all events for many years ahead, we should meet a good deal of the criticism that is advanced against Trade Facilities if by
some device we made provision for a, State or a public right in this connection.
I do not want to press the argument beyond that this afternoon, because I think, in the light of the Financial Secretary's reply, it will be our duty to put some Amendment on the Paper in order to test this principle in the House. I do, however, urge hon. Members, whatever may be their political or economic faith, to believe this, that the time has come in this House, and especially in post-War conditions, when we can no longer refuse to find a solution for this controversy, because undoubtedly we have placed very substantial sums of our credit at the disposal of quite powerful interests, some of whom, unquestionably, could have raised the money without that help, and we have got this form of bonus or subsidy in being. Having given notice of that intention, I think we must test it on the Committee stage of this Bill, because, in our view on this side of the House, a very important principle in our public finance is undoubtedly involved.

Lieut.-Commander WILLIAMS: It is with very considerable reluctance that I rise to say a few words on this Measure. but I am not exactly certain that, as taxpayers. we are getting the best value out f this scheme. I believe we all agree at the present. time that if, by using our Trade Facilities scheme better, and by encouragement of individual industry, we can help employment, we are all ready and willing to take the risk, but I should like to urge on the present Government that there are many industries in our own country. and particularly small industries, which might be receiving rather more encouragement than they are at the present time. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West. Swansea (Mr. Runciman) referred just now to the fact that, as far as many of our harbours are concerned, it is quite possible that the Government might use this gift, or. rather, help, which their guarantee gives, in order to help our trade a great deal more by securing these harbours, and particularly, in many cases, the very small ones, than by, say, developing at some future time waterworks or other undertakings which, while very useful in bringing us work at the present time, might at some time or other be entirely lost to us.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), who opened the Debate, referred to co-operative societies, and he went on to suggest that we might give help to the village blacksmith, the village carpenter, and people of that sort. I do not think the party to which he belongs is going to do very much to help the small individualist, but I say quite clearly that 1 think the small individualist, in some industries, is coming to a, time when he wishes to continue his individualist system, and to combine so that he may continue to use it in competition with some of our big existing industries. To take the case of the fishing industry, there is in some parts of the country a distinct movement in that industry to try to combine so that the small people in the industry can obtain enough capital, not only to run their own boats and their own fishing industry, but actually themselves to place their fish on the market. I think that if the Government, by means of this or some other Measure, could help those people to advance in that way by guaranteeing loans for them, it would do a great deal, first of all, in helping to encourage this industry, and, secondly, in helping the general employment of the country. These smaller industries are endeavouring to advance and meet the competition of the time.
Would it not be possible, also, for the present Government to help the agricultural industry by giving increased facilities where groups or districts might wish to develop on co-operative lines, for the purpose, say, of establishing bacon factories, or of selling their produce by means of creameries and so on? I raise these points 'because I feel certain that in this matter it would be far better if the Government would encourage purely local industries, and encourage the local people engaged in them to develop their industries, possibly on somewhat more modern lines, rather than helping the big shipping firms or the big industrial companies, who at the present time are generally fairly well able to look after themselves.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I should like to support what the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just sat clown has said about the fishing industry. That industry has certainly been much in need
of credits in the past, and I believe that, if what the hon. and gallant Gentleman has been suggesting had been done after the War, when a great many fishermen were encouraged to take up the ownership of trawlers, and if they had been helped with some form of credit in running them, that scheme might have been more successful than it was. It is mainly in the Western parts of the country that the fishing industry is in need of credits. In the North, at Hull, Grimsby, and so on, the great companies have plenty of capital, and their trouble is largely with the railway companies and the high price of coal.
The right hon. Gentleman told us that in the opinion of the Committee itself—and presumably they take the rosiest view of the matter—this Act, since its inception, has given work to 100,000 men who otherwise would have been idle. That works out, on the basis of £65,000,000 worth of credit, or guarantee, or liability, at £650 per man, and, as I believe the loss has so far only been a very small percentage, I think that that is a very good use for Government credit. It is, however, somewhat expensive. These men would be getting about £50 a year on the average in cash from the unemployment fund, which was partly provided by themselves, if they had not got employment under this Act. Therefore, it works out, roughly speaking, that the nation's assets are mortgaged to the extent of £650 per workman employed, and that is taking the optimistic view of the Committee itself. I do not think that that is a very remarkable performance at all. Work has been provided for 100,000 men at a rather expensive rate, although 1 am careful not to make the mistake, which is so often made outside, of mixing up cash with credit and guarantees.
Is there any reason, however, why the scheme should not be very largely extended The resources of the State are very great indeed. They are not unlimited, of course, but during the late War we could see how enormous the resources of the whole country were. Why should we stop short of £70,000,000 of credit? After all, in spite of the fact that. 100,000 men have been provided with work at one time or another, I suppose that some of them are now out of work again, as the Act has been in operation
since 1921. We have still about 1,100,000 men unemployed; why do we stop short, therefore, at £70,000,000 I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will explain why the limit is fixed at that figure? Why are we only asking for £5,000,000 of additional credit now, when we have this vast volume of unemployment in the country?
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) made some extremely interesting suggestions, and I am wondering why some of them have not been carried out before, particularly the suggestion as to the way in which Government credit is being used for building up certain businesses. Again and again we see the statement, "Company to be formed." At Question Time the other day, the case was referred to of a cement company that was not in existence at all until it got from the Government the promise of a guarantee. They then went to the public. There was a public issue, with the prospectus advertised in all the Press, and, the Sunday papers in particular, in which it was set out in large type that a Government guarantee of so many thousand pounds had been given: and undoubtedly a great many people would subscribe to the, company on the very fact that the Government had given that guarantee. I f the Treasury gives credit to a company, that is a thing which by itself would induce people to subscribe who might not know anything about the directors, or the assets of the company, or anything else. In, this particular case—I refer to the Dunstable Cement Company, which has been referred to in this House at Question Time, and which I believe is going to be referred to later—there were, apparently, one or two rather curious features as to the assets that the company were able to show to the Government, and I believe some curious facts will come out. I am told now that, in spite of the Government's guarantee, a good deal of the stock was not taken up by the public, but was left on the hands of the underwriters. It seems to me that, as was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman), the very fact that we encourage people to come out with a public issue, in which they are able to state on the prospectus that they have
received a guarantee from the Treasury, is in itself objectionable, arid is, in any case, a matter that should be looked upon with very great care and jealousy by the Treasury.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) suggested that the State should benefit where these 6.0 P.M. companies have become prosperous, very often as the result of the initial start given them by Government credit, and that is a view I should like to endorse; but why was not that done when the right hon. Gentleman was in office? He was a member of the Cabinet, and I should like to know if he urged that view. I believe he was speaking with the authority of his party, and I think he might have taken the opportunity while in office of putting that matter right. If the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald) takes part in the Debate, perhaps he will explain what were the difficulties at that time. Certainly, if by the use of Government credit we help people to build up great and prosperous businesses, the Treasury ought to benefit in the years to come, and that can best be done by some special class of shares being created which the Treasury might hold. I cannot understand why this limit of £70,000,000 has been put, and I should like an explanation. I note, however, that the right hon. Gentleman looks upon the whole Act as economically mischievous and only to be supported in these abnormal times. The times are abnormal. We are just working through our fourth or fifth winter of acute unemployment and I invite him to explain why he thinks £5,000,000 additional will be sufficient. Of course I understand that credits which have been liquidated and come back may be used again, but most of the accommodations are for very long periods, running up to 50 years in the case of the City and South London Railway Company, for example, and there are not many short ones. There are a few of five years but they are mostly seven, nine, 10 and 12 years. The figures show that we have used up the original £60,000,000. The total amount on the White Paper is very substantial. Is the Government coming to the House again for a further extension, or what is the
intention? At any rate, why do they think an additional £5,000,000 is sufficient in view of the slackness of trade which continues and the tremendous number of men without work?
The Government will presently have to tackle the very awkward question of Russia. We can all laugh about this, but they will find it a very difficult matter and one they cannot ignore. They will not be able to turn their back on this poor man by the wayside, like the unjust man in the Parable—[interruption].

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Hope): I fail to appreciate the connection—though doubtless the hon. and gallant Gentleman can do so—between the Russians and the Pharisees.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I will not pursue the Biblical reference further than to remind my hon. Friend that eventually someone came along who acted the part of the good Samaritan. Previous Governments have been un willing or unable to help the man who has fallen among thieves up to now, but one day, I prophesy, someone on the Treasury Bench will have to act the part of the good Samaritan and come to the help of this unfortunate country, because it is a necessity for the world that its productive capacity should be brought into the general pool and that it should be opened up again as a market. Sooner or later some Government, and I believe this Government, during their present term of office, whether they like it or not, will have to tackle this Russian question, and they will find it necessary, if we are to get back our money, in our turn to give them some form of help. They have refused the method suggested by the late Government and will have to find some other, and they will probably return to the method proposed by the present President of the Board of Trade at the Conference at The Hague to settle the matter with Litvinoff, following on the Genoa Conference, and that was some extension of the Trade Facilities Act. This aspect of the question should be carefully examined, and it is obvious that, in order to pay for the Trade Facilities Act as a means of assisting trade between this country and Russia, you will have to set up another Committee to operate a Bill drawn up in a different way and, obviously, with more elastic
provisions. You will have to be prepared to take greater risks with your money—that goes without saying—and I hope the Government are examining into this question now and in good time, because sooner or later they will have to use some such scheme as this. We are granting £2,000,000 for the electrification of railways and we are supplying the tramways in Greece. That is, of course, a very good way of giving work in this country to the men who make the electrical equipment for tramways and so on, but the very same principle might be applied to the men who are making engineering products for Russia, and I should think the security of Russia and the security of Greece perhaps in a few years to come will not be so very different. I beg of the Government not to lose sight of this aspect of the matter. The right hon. Gentleman made it quite clear that he was against the principle of the Act and that it is only to be excused because of the abnormal times we are in. Of course economically this is neither State Socialism nor is it the free play of the money market—the bankers, the manufacturers, and the ordinary merchant adventurers who bring finance to the country in the ordinary course of things. It is a mixture of the two, with many disadvantages and disabilities. We, however, have to do something of this sort. I think we ought to use the Act to the fullest extent until we get through these bad times, and in the meantime it behoves the Treasury to exercise the greatest care and discrimination in seeing that only perfectly reputable firms are given these facilities and that Treasury credits are not used for public issues and the possible inducement of money from the investing public when otherwise the public would not look at the scheme at all.

Sir JOHN MARRIOTT: The speech to which we have just listened, it seems to me, illustrates the very grave danger which is inherent in legislation of this character. The first part of the speech was devoted to a very luminous exposition of the extravagance of this scheme from the point of view of unemployment. The hon. and gallant Gentleman gave the House an elaborate calculation, which I have no doubt, coming from him, was arithmetically correct, as to the cost per man of this scheme from the point of view of setting up work for the
ployed. I entirely agree with him on this point. From that point of view the scheme is wildly extravagant, and has by no means fulfilled the expectations which were originally formed of it. The hon. and gallant Gentleman says "the Act was inherently bad and grossly extravagant. Why do you not extend its provisions? Why do you only ask for £70,000,000?" Does he really seriously suggest that a scheme which is wildly and perniciously extravagant is to be indefinitely extended? I am sure his good logic and his good sense will help him to avoid that conclusion. We have listened to an exceedingly interesting speech from the Front Bench opposite, but I found it difficult to reconcile its component parts with each other. The first half of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) was one of the very best expositions of individualistic doctrine. I have ever listened to in the House, but the conclusion to which he attempted to lead the House in the latter part of his speech was in a directly opposite direction. I listened, therefore, with relief and satisfaction to the speech of the Secretary to the Treasury. It was couched in a tone of apology and caution. My right hon. Friend made it clear that he dislikes prof undly the principles embodied in this Bill. I entirely share his aversion, and if he had not couched it in that apologetic and cautious tone, I and others might have found it necessary to divide against the Second Reading of the Bill. As it is, accepting from him the assurance that this is a Bill, the principle of which be and the Government dislike, and the operation of which they intend to limit, I shall not oppose it at. this stage.

Major HORE-BELISHA: The House will doubtless be consoled to hear that' the hon. Gentleman is not going to oppose the Bill at this stage. I derive a considerable amount of encouragement from that. I should very much like to oppose it at any stage, because the scheme which it embodies causes grave anxiety to my constituency. The shipbuilding industry, which is so well represented in this House, has denounced the Measure as being entirely unnecessary in its own interest. As one looks down the list of guarantees one finds that by far the greater portion of the money which is being guaranteed
is going to private shipbuilding firms for the building of ships, which can only aggravate the present position of surplus tonnage which is now so disconcerting a feature of the shipbuilding trade. If the shipbuilding interest in this House finds it necessary to oppose the Measure what is to be said for those who are interested,,. not in private, but in public shipbuilding My constituents find that they are made contingently liable for sums of money which are going to firms acting in direct competition with the national interests in this matter, and I therefore feel it to be my duty, as it is certainly my right, to put their point of view. This Trade Facilities Bill, and the trade facilities scheme generally, do not only offer a subsidy by way of guarantee to private firms. That does not exhaust the encouragement which the Government give to private shipbuilding firms. They give direct work in the shape of battleships and cruisers, and the "Nelson" and the "Rodney" are being built at the national expense in private shipbuilding yards, precisely because there are no slips large enough to build those battleships in the Government yards, and cruisers are being built in private yards as well, and yards which are deriving the additional encouragement of a guarantee under this Act.
It seems a little paradoxical that the Government should go out of their way to facilitate a scheme which is designed to encourage private shipbuilding while they allow unemployment to exist in their own yards and while they allow national ships to he built in private yards. There is absolutely no alternative employment in the constituency represent to that of shipbuilding, and if my constituents are not provided with work by the Government they have absolutely no work at all. Yet, although unemployment has been grave and serious for years in the Government shipbuilding yards, the Government persist in this policy of subsidising and encouraging private firms. Mention was made by the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Runciman) of the necessity for giving benefits to harbours and docks under this scheme. If that policy were pursued it would be of very great advantage to the type of constituency I represent. Plymouth might be the principal port of the
South of England—Plymouth, which neighbours upon my constituency—were it not that the Government is holding up all the facilities by exercising a monopoly of the only available water there, and so, from whichever angle this scheme is surveyed, whether from the point of view of building ships or of providing additional dock and harbour accommodation, my constituency is bound to suffer, and I deem it my duty to represent its point of view in this House. There is not a single dock in any national yard which is capable of building a battleship, and yet the Government thinks it right to subsidies private firms who have docks capable of building battleships and in addition to give them money to compete with private firms.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.— [Mr. Guinness.]

Orders of the Day — BRITISH EMPIRE EXHIBITION (GUARANTEE).

Resodution Reported,
That it is expedient to amend the British Empire Exhibition (Guarantee) Act, 1920, and the British Empire Exhibition (Amendment) Act, 1922. by increasing from one hundred thousand pounds to one million one hundred thousand pounds the amount lip to which a guarantee may he given there-. under, and by providing that those Acts shall have effect as if they had authorised the giving of a guarantee in respect of any loss resulting from the holding of a British Empire Exhibition in the years nineteen hundred and twenty-four and nineteen hundred and twenty-five.
Motion made, and Question proposed," That this House cloth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: When this Vote was last before the douse, information was given by the hon. Member in charge of the Financial Resolution; information of a somewhat varied character. Questions were put to him from the Front Opposition Bench, and the result of the cross-examination was that the Parliamentary Secretary for the Overseas Trade Department paid very high compliments to his predecessor in office, and his predecessor in office said how extremely well the
present occupant of the office was dealing with the subjects that were put before him. They exchanged compliments to their great mutual satisfaction, but I am afraid that in doing so the information which the Committee required regarding the finances of the Wembley Exhibition, and the guarantees which we are asked to extend, was not given. Inquiries were put gently on one side, and there seemed to he a desire to keep the discussion on the smoothest possible lines. The Minister in charge of the Vote must have been the despair of the reporters in the Press Gallery, for, with the greatest possible rapidity, seldom excelled in this House, he gave us the most meagre information.
The hon. Member was asked a number of questions which are of great importance if we are to safeguard the expenditure of public money with any care. The first subject on which I would like the hon. Member to enlighten us is, how and when the various guarantees which have been promised by the Government were given'? As far as I can gather from the circulars issued by the exhibition authorities, the circular of July, 1920, asking private guarantors to create a fund, without which the exhibition could not be held, declared that
It will be financed by means of credits obtained from banks on the security of the guarantee fund, to which His Majesty's Government have agreed, subject to the sanction of Parliament, to contribute £100,000.
So far as I can ascertain—this did not appear in the narrative which the hon. Member gave us—that £100,000 was the first guarantee. The next information that I have been able to procure on the subject was in the form of a communication, addressed to the signatories to the deficiency undertaking, commonly known as the guarantors. In that document it is stated that the Government guarantee was to be raised to £1,000,000, not to £1,100,000, as is now proposed in this Financial Resolution. The Government guarantee was to be raised to £1,000,000 "provided that sufficient support comes from the Dominions and Colonies, exhibitors, etc., and that the consent of the guarantors is given to the continuation of their guarantees."
Therefore, between the period in 1920, when the first undertaking was given, and November, 1024, the guarantee had
gone up from £100,000 to £1,000,000. As far as I have been able to ascertain, the guarantee went up in stages. In May of last year, apparently, a communication was sent either to the hon. Member's Department or to the Treasury making it clear that the Duke of Devonshire had made himself responsible, either on behalf of himself or for others associated with him, for a guarantee of £500,000. In May of last year, therefore, the guarantee stood in this form—the private guarantors were the guarantees for £1,000,000, there was the guarantee of £100,000 promised by the Government, and the guarantee of £500,000 which the Duke of Devonshire had initialed. So that the guarantees stood at £600,000 outside the amount guaranteed by the private guarantors.
In May, 1924, the Duke of Devonshire asked the Government then in office to undertake his guarantee of £500,000 and, as far as I can ascertain—the compliments between the two front benches on the last occasion were so numerous and passed so rapidly that we never got any information on the subject—the hon. Member's predecessor in office gave an undertaking that the Government would take over the Duke of Devonshire's guarantee of £500,000. That may have been quite proper, and I daresay it was, but we ought to have been told about that, not only in the last Session of Parliament, but when a fresh Vote was asked for last week. That guarantee of £500,000 plus the £100,000 guarantee that the Government hail already given, brought up the Government's guarantee to £600,000, and a further £400,000 teas, apparently, apparently, promised in November, 1924, for it was in November, 1924, that the signatories to the deficiency undertaking were communicated with. That brought the Government guarantee, if that promise were carried out, up to £1,000,000. Now, there is an addition of £100,000. Therefore, the Government guarantee hart gone up from £100,000 to £600,000, including the £500,000 guarantee taken over, then to £1,000,000, and now to £1,100,000.
What we want to know, and what the House is entitled to know as the guardians of the public purse, is this: where is this sort of thing to stop'? What is going to be done if the exhibition of 1925 shows another heavy loss? Is the
Government committed to guaranteeing that deficiency, whatever it may come to? If the Government is not committed, who is going to make up the deficiency? I do not ask merely whether the Government is committed in writing, but I want to know whether there are any under standings. Apparently there was every reason to suppose that in May of last year the Government was committed to what may be called the Devonshire half-million, in addition to the Government's other responsibility. If there be a deficiency this year greater than that which is now anticipated, is this House going to be asked to make up that deficiency?
Another point on which further information might have been given to the Committee, and which 1 hope will now be given to the House, is, what is to happen if, instead of making a loss, the exhibition makes a profit this year? As far as I can gather from the circular of November, 1924, part of that profit will be used to reduce the amount of the private guarantees, and to provide, after the payment of taxes and Government duties,
 any contribution which may have to be given to the Dominions, Colonies or others for co-operating in the exhibition.
What are the undertakings with regard to the Dominions, the Colonies, and others who are co-operating in the exhibition? Has any undertaking been given in writing in regard to the contributions from the Dominions, Colonies and others? Are they to be entitled to a share of the profits? Are they to be entitled to any share in the assets which may remain? If there have been any undertakings given, why should they not be disclosed to the House? If they were given, when were they given?? In the circular issued by the exhibition authorities, it is clear that part of the surplus, if there be any surplus, will be used for the payment of contributions to the Dominions, the Colonies arid others. This information was not- given to us when the Vote was asked for in Committee, and it. is only fair that it should be given to us now, so that we may know exactly where we stand in regard to the profits, if there be any, and in regard to any loss that there may be.
When the exhibition is wound up there will be, no doubt, a number of creditors,
unless there has been a very large profit made in the exhibition during the next few months. Lloyds Bank are the first creditors. They hold the guarantee of the private guarantors, and they also hold the guarantee of the Government up to the present year. They will be covered for an advance which has now reached £1,800,000 by guarantees amounting to £1,700,000. There remains a sum of £100,000 still to be covered. Has that hiatus already been filled? I am informed, and I should be glad to know whether it is the case or not, that the freehold property of the Wembley Exhibition authorities has been guaranteed to Lloyds Bank, and that a first mortgage has been registered. Does that mean that, whereas Lloyds Bank will have an advance up to £1,700 fully covered at 20s. in the £, and has only £100,000 at risk, we are to be asked in this House to guarantee £1,100,000, and that we are to have no share in the assets, if there be any? That question was put by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton) last. week, and no answer was given to him. The Minister in charge of the Bill ought to tell the House whether, if the property is sold, we are to share in the distribution of the assets, or are they to he held entirely by Lloyds Bank to cover themselves'? It we advance £1,100,000 on what is, in fact, a semi-private public undertaking, we should also share in the division of any assets which may be left when the exhibition is wound up.
I have raised these various questions because I think it is right that this large sum of money should not be handed over to the exhibition authorities without their expenditure being carefully scrutinised and full information being given by the Minister responsible. The more one looks into the financial arrangements of the exhibition the more shocked one is at the looseness with which it was undertaken and administered last year and a year or two before the exhibition was held. The Minister in charge told us on the last occasion that this embarrassment arose very largely owing to the fact that the actual expenditure far exceeded the estimate. I am sure that in no similar case has the excess of expenditure been so large. The original estimate was £1,600,000 capital expenditure for buildings and land. It rose to £2,950,000 before these accounts were presented to
the House of Commons, and the only explanation given by the hon. Gentleman of this great increase was that Borneo and Sarawak had come in. Certainly that. did not involve any great extension of the size of the exhibition. It did involve an extension, but that was very small and unimportant in comparison with the whole size of the exhibition, and of the British Empire.
There was no explanation of the very large expenditure over the original estimate given at the time. It is accounted for very largely by the fact that the contract was made for a great deal of the work on the basis of time and line, and that this was done at a time when labour and everything else were expensive, but no doubt the contractor took a satisfactory basis on the time and line arrangement, though he need not have done that for the contract itself provided for him. That is not the only instance of bad management in connection with the exhibition. The accounting itself was loose. I think that the hon. Gentleman himself confessed on the last occasion that the accounting was loose, and wherever you have loose accounting you are bound to have a waste of money. A great deal of this money was the money of the State. and it is only right that we should scrutinise with the greatest care the arrangements for the coming season lest we find ourselves at the close of the exhibition with no share of the assets, and with the possibility of a heavy deficit which would have to be met by a further guarantee. While criticising the financial methods of the exhibition, and the way in which the Department dealt with it, and the lack of scrutiny into the details of the expenditure, I do not undervalue in the least the Imperial service which the exhibition has done, but I doubt whether we are justified in embarking on this large financial guarantee for an exhibition in its second year, as there has been no example in this country in the past of an exhibition which was opened for a second year, and which turned out to be a success.

M. A. M. SAMUEL (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): Perhaps I may now deal with the important points which have been raised by the right hon. Gentleman, while they are fresh in our minds. In the first place may I correct a misapprehension under which
he has laboured? He said that I had said that the expenditure had gone up from £1,600,000 because Sarawak and British North Borneo had come in. What I said was that the increase in the amount of the expenditure was caused by the fact that all the units of the British Empire came in except the Irish Free State and British North Borneo. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not try to misrepresent me, but what he has, by a misunderstanding, stated is contrary to the facts.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I do not wish to be in the least unfair, but the rapidity with which the hon. Gentleman dealt with the question made it impossible to follow him. What the right hon. Gentleman did say was that there was an unforeseen extension of the exhibition—I do not care whether it was Sarawak or Borneo—and that that accounted for the expenditure being nearly doubled.

Mr. SAMUEL: I will take the right hon. Gentleman through this White Paper which I have ventured to lay before the House, and explain the balance sheet, to enable me to clear up for him the matter of £100,000 and of the guarantee to which he referred. At the bottom of page 2, he can see that there is an amount advanced by Lloyds Bank to the exhibition authorities of £1,800,000 to make up the deficit. On page 3, he will see that the total of the guarantee fund, excluding the Government guarantee, is £1,107,991. That is the amount which was provided by public-spirited private persons. Then we have the Government guarantee of £100,000, making the total guarantee fund £1,207,991. That leaves us with a shortage of £600,000. The guarantee of £100,000 is a guarantee of July, 1921. Then in May, 1924, the Government Resolution guaranteed a further £500,000. That brings up the credit, to meet the £1,800,000, to £1,700,00. There is, thus, £100,000 shortage. It is asked how is that shortage covered. it has been covered by Lloyds Bank taking a charge upon the site and the roads and the buildings of the exhibition.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: A first mortgage.

Mr. SAMUEL: Well, a charge. To recapitulate: As I explained before the deficit was £1,800,000, The Government's first guarantee was £1,100,000. The
guarantee of private guarantors was £1,100,000. These two guarantees made £1,200,000, rendering it necessary to raise £600,000 to cover the deficit. Against this there is the £500,000 covered by the Resolution passed by this House in May last, and there is also the £100,000 advanced by Lloyds Bank for which they have taken a charge upon the property. The right hon. Gentleman raised the point about the Duke of Devonshire, and in this connection let me pay a tribute to the Duke of Devonshire. If the Duke had not taken the responsibility of guaranteeing the £500,000 the whole exhibition would have shut up. The late Government took over that guarantee, and the House of Commons ratified the promise of the right hon. Gentleman opposite that the £500,000 should be put on the shoulders of the taxpayer. That was how the Duke of Devonshire guaranteed that £500,000 and how the responsibility was taken off his shoulders.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May we take it that it was the Duke's own private guarantee and was not given by him as Secretary for the Colonies?

Mr. SAMUEL: It was with the public spirit which marks his every action, and the House, I am sure, is very much obliged to him. The House is committed to nothing beyond what is now set out—the £1,100,000. The right hon. Gentleman asked how that was split up. There is £100,000 of July, 1921, there was the £500,000 dealt with in the Resolution of the right hon. Gentleman of May, 1924, and there is the request now for the further £500,000 which is lumped in with the £600,000 made up of £100,000 and £500,000, bringing the total up to £1,100,000. The right hon. Gentleman, with his knowledge of figures, is perfectly right in drawing attention to the jump from £400,000 to £500,000. That was made because it was found that the £400,000 would be an incorrect estimate, and we had to do what we thought was necessary to give a correct estimate.
The right hon. Gentleman asked what would be the position of the guarantors if there was a profit. I can give a definite answer to that. I have taken occasion to find out. exactly what would happen in such an unlikely event. I am afraid that there will not he any profit
after the guarantors are paid, and I hold out no hope of a profit, but, if there is anything left over, it is laid down that any profit, after all expenses have been met and the guarantors have been recouped the full amount of the guarantee, shall be devoted to public objects approved by the Board of Trade. The question has been asked as to what is the position of the guarantors in the event of a loss? If the right hon. Gentleman would look at the document of July, 1921, I think that he will find that this is defined in Clause 2, in the Form of Undertaking to Subscribe. I read it to mean that. the guarantors would probably be called on first to make good what they guaranteed because the realisation of the assets may take a considerable time. Then, when all the assets are realised and the amount due to Lloyd's Bank has been discharged, any balance which may remain will be used for a refund, or a partial refund, to the guarantors of whatever amount they may have been called upon to pay. That is to say, after paying all debts, charges and costs, any money left would he for the benefit of the guarantors. I do not think that there is any other point raised by the right hon. Gentleman which remains to be dealt with.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Does that apply to the private guarantees and not to the State guarantee?

Mr. SAMUEL: They are pari passu. They both stand together. That was the question which the right hon. Gentleman put to the House when we debated this point the other day. I think that that Debate made it clear that we stand to recoup ourselves pari passuwith the other guarantors, if there is anything left after the debts and charges of the exhibition have been paid.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: What is to happen if there is a loss over and above the amount of the guarantees?

Mr. SAMUEL: If more money should be required than is covered by these guarantees, someone will have to come along, and put up a fresh guarantee to cover those requirements. It would probably take the form of a charge on the property. We have no intention now of asking the House to assume any further liability with regard to the exhibition. I have answered these points without delay
as they seem to present some difficulty. If there are any other points raised later on I will ask permission to deal with them, but 1 thought it better for the convenience of the House to deal with all these points of accounting at once.

Sir ALFRED BUTT: I have listened to the Parliamentary Secretary's explanation of the White Paper, and confess that I am still at a loss to understand what is the proposal before the House. As far as I can see, there is a deficit of £1,800,000, and there are private guarantees at the moment for £1,100,000, which, I think the Parliamentary Secretary has said, are liable to be substantially 90 per cent. If we take it at £1,000,000, there is still a deficiency of £800,000. The Parliamentary Secretary is asking us to increase the total Government guarantee to the sum of £1,100,000, so that if the £800,000 be taken from the total guarantee of the Government, there will remain £300,000. Against that an addition has to be made of £150,000 owing to the Government for Entertainments Duty. As far as I can make out from the Memorandum, there will be a sum of only £150,000 available for this year's exhibition. The figures seem to me to be quite clear. According to this White Paper, the remaining guarantee of the Government was to provide £500,000 for the opening of the exhibition this year. I think it is quite clear that there is a discrepancy there of something like £350,000. When I read the last lines of the White Paper, I find these words:
The additional guarantee of £1,000,000 will rank pari passu with the original Government guarantee of £100,000 and those given by firms, corporations, private individuate, etc.
If my interpretation of these words be correct, they mean in effect that of the Government guarantee they will be called upon to pay something like 81 per cent. in order to discharge the present liability, and they will thereby relieve the present guarantors, whose money is wholly lost, to the extent of 19 per cent., leaving only the difference between £896,000 and £1,100,000 for the future conduct of the exhibition. I wish the Parliamentary Secretary would explain why the Government should now be asked to provide money to rank pari passu with the existing guarantors, whose money is already irremediably lost? Why has no provision
been made in regard to this claim for £150,000 Entertainments Duty? What is of even greater importance is that we have on successive occasions had Estimates placed before the House which have subsequently proved to be totally inadequate and misleading—Estimates which, if they had been produced in an ordinary trading concern, would have led to very serious criticism from the whole of the business community. As recently as May last the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department stated in this House that the total expenditure was something like £3,720,000. In fact, we are now told that it was £3,900,000, an increase of something like £200,000. At that same time the Parliamentary Secretary said that if 30,000,000 people visited the exhibition the receipts would be 13,500,000. In fact, they were 22,100,000. That is a difference of £1,700,000 between the estimate and the receipts. We have been told that the number of people who visited the exhibition was something like 17,000,000, so that if we give credit to the exhibition for the 13,000,000 who did not visit it, there is still a discrepancy: in the estimate of £1,000,000 on the receipt side and of £200,000 on the expenditure side.
I have been told on previous occasions that this has nothing to do with the Government, that they were only guarantors for insignificant sums, that the whole management rested with the British Empire Exhibition. That may have been true in 1920, when our guarantee was an insignificant sum of £100,000, but now that we are asked to guarantee more than half the total expenditure I think it is right that the House should have some better and fuller information, both with regard to the financial side and the business management of the exhibition. If the Parliamentary Secretary is able to do so, I wish he would tell the House whether he can give any assurance that the item of capital expenditure of £2,950,000 is an item which has been vouched for by any firm of repute. I am told that that item is at least £1,000,000 under the final cost for the exhibition. I do not think it is fair that this House. should be continuously asked to vote money in order that this exhibition can be carried on in a manner which, to say the least of it, would not be worthy of a seaside fair, and at the same time have no control over public expenditure. I say with full
knowledge of the responsibility of my words that the British Empir3 Exhibition is a very great scandal. There is a great deal of corruption in regard to the management. I do not suggest for one moment that the Parliamentary Secretary, whose unenviable task it is to defend this Motion, has been able in the short time at his disposal to investigate the matter fully. But I do say that if this House is to be asked to pledge itself to continually increasing expenditure, it is only right that the Government should have placed before them a balance sheet properly audited by a firm of chartered accountants, showing the whole of the capital expenditure, and showing exactly what is to be done in future, so that we can know our liabilities.

Mr. MAXTON: I wish to refer to one or two points which have been raised before in this House, and to which no adequate reply has yet been given. I am supporting generally the view that the Government should take these financial burdens upon their shoulders. But before this House grants this considerable sum, I want an assurance that some regard will be had to the interests of the public, who have ultimately to find these sums. On previous occasions, when this Vote was before the House, hon. Members on the Labour Benches have asked from the Parliamentary Secretary that he should use some influence or take some steps, first of all to see that employ´s about the exhibition, employed direct or by exhibitors, have reasonable regard paid to their conditions, to their convenience, to their hours. of labour, and to their wages. It is not right that a great British Empire Exhibition, to which visitors will come from all parts of the world, should be displaying among its other exhibits an exhibit of underpaid, overwrought., and badly-treated workers. The best exhibit that any Empire can make to the world is a group of well-cared-for and well-thought-of employ´s. Throughout the period of the arrangements for this exhibition, during the period when it. was previously opened, and with regard to the arrangements now being made for the further opening, there has been a very well-grounded suspicion among hon. Members on these benches that many of the employ´s about the exhibition were not receiving what could be regarded as decent terms.
Secondly, it seems to me that, whether we become liable for our guarantees or not, depends entirely on whether people can be got in sufficient numbers to visit the exhibition this year. In this regard we have a right to ask the Government representative that they should bring every influence to bear upon the exhibition authorities to see that a visit to the exhibition is brought financially within the means of the average member of the working classes. Whether this next instalment of the exhibition is to be a success or a failure—upon that depends the extent of our financial liability—will depend entirely on the number of people who pass through the turnstiles each day and take part in the various interests of the exhibition. Last year the big mass of the working classes did not go to the exhibition. Consequently, the receipts were down to a considerable extent. Every entertainment caterer in the industrial centres—I do not know that this applies so much to London—has in recent years quite definitely come to the conclusion that it is better to have a full house at 3d. per head than an empty house at ls. a head. It seems to me that the Government can quite reasonably use influence with the exhibition authorities to see that, first of all, the charge for admission is brought within the range of a man who is earning £3 a week. That is a fairly high average sum in these days. If you want to get 40,000,000 people to visit the exhibition rather than a select few, you must make a very low admission charge. Further, when the visitor is inside you ought to take some reasonable steps to see that for the refreshment and food which he requires he shall be charged what is reasonable, comparable with the charges outside, that side-shows and entertainments of every kind are brought within the range of the working-class purse, and, perhaps more than anything, that steps should be taken to see that the cheapest means of transit are secured to bring people in from the provinces to the centre of London, and that cheap means of transit are provided from the centre of London to the exhibition.
Further, there is the point that has been brought before the House on more than one occasion, namely, that some really definite and drastic step should be taken to prevent profiteering by hotel
keepers in London on people who come here from the country in order to go to the exhibition. I know that in answer to questions the Government have stated that no such profiteering takes place, except in a few rare instances. In the ordinary second and third rate hotels that ordinary people can afford it was very general that prices were raised sometimes by 100 per cent. over the pre-exhibition charges. Immediately the exhibition was over the prices reverted to their ordinary scale. In all these directions the Government should show itself genuinely anxious to get people to the exhibition and to make it a success, and thus reduce very considerably the liability which this House is being asked to take upon its shoulders for the success of the exhibition

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on his reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman). If he will not mind my saying so, I thought he was as adroit as ever in making out a rather difficult case. When you get a sadden jump of £100,000 in an estimate in a very few weeks, it takes a great deal of explaining away. There is, of course, no serious opposition to this sum of money being granted. The criticism of my right hon. Friend really summed up the position. The Imperial gains from this exhibition, 7.0 P.M. we hope, will be so great that no one will take the responsibility of refusing to make this guarantee. That is the position. Might I put those two points to the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel) before he replies. I hope he is not going to allow himself to be tempted into any question of the Sunday opening of this exhibition. I believe that would be a profound mistake, and repugnant to the majority of the people in this country who wish to see the Sabbath properly observed. I think it will be a great mistake if any such attempt be made. It will only add more terrible conditions of work for the people employed in the exhibition. [An HON. 'MEMBER: "More enjoyment for the workers!"] The hon. Member talks about more enjoyment for the workers. There is plenty of music on Sundays. The workers can go on other days of the week, especially if the suggestion of the hon.
Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) be accepted. Secondly, as we are now guaranteeing such a very large amount; we are practically financing the re-opening. The £600,000, if I may paraphrase, is to provide the exhibition authorities with finance to meet the expenses of re-opening in 1925. That being the case, I think the last excuse has been removed for the Government not insisting on Fair Wages Clauses being in all contracts and proper facilities and conveniences for all workers being supplied. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. M. Samuel) will find himself during the months to come, I hope, closely questioned from all parts of the House, if everything be not right and up to the mark, and he will not be able to say, as his predecessor and other hon. Gentlemen who had to answer for this exhibition said, "We have no real power; it is the guarantors." We are actually finding money now, and by every calculation will have to put down the cash; therefore, we must demand that it shall be worthy of such an exhibition held in the capital of the Empire.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: I rise for one purpose only. I wish to congratulate the Minister most sincerely on the very important declaration that he has made to-night. He has declared to this House that this is the last time he is coming to us for money for Wembley. During the time Wembley has been under discussion, I think we all realise that the feeling on behalf of the exhibition is the same from whatever side of the House the Member speaks. At the same time, there has been a very uneasy feeling throughout the House with regard to Wembley finance. We know the Minister in charge is new to it, and we look to him to see that things are put straight. I hope we shall never have to remind him of the declaration he has made that he is never coming to this House for money again.

Captain GARRO-JONES: I shall not detain the House more than two minutes while I put before the Minister one or two points. The first is the question of the food supply to the exhibition. Last year in addition to gross examples of profiteering the service was totally inefficient, and there was a large number of cases of actual poisoning of people who went to take food in some of the restaurants.
These, I regret to say, were hushed up in the Press. In the allocation of new contracts, can he give the House the assurance that there will be satisfactory conditions with regard to food service and prices? The second question has regard to ex-service men. In my constituency, where we have a very large branch of the British Legion, the honorary secretary sent a request to the management of the exhibition asking whether he could bring up a small party of blind and disabled ex-service men, and whether they could get into the exhibition free of charge. He received a very curt refusal from the management of the exhibition, who said that disabled men would have to pay the same as anybody else. This is the British Empire Exhibition, and I should like 1.0 ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he could secure that disabled ex-service men should have the privilege of free admission.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: I can only speak by leave of the House, and, if the House will permit me, I will reply to further points which have been raised. The hon. Member for Balham (Sir A. Butt) asked me about the guarantors. The broad answer to him is this: The private guarantors were not forced to allow their guarantees to run on. Had we not made the present arrangement we could not have got them to carry their guarantees On. The understanding was that we came down to the House and asked for £500,000 and also allowed them to stand in pari passe. The hon. Gentleman also asked what we had done about the audit. I am glad to tell him that a very well-known firm audited the accounts and the audited balance sheet will he laid before the executive council this week. The chairman of the board of management is Lord Stevenson. I made a mistake the other day by saying it was the Duke of Devonshire. Lord Stevenson is chairman of the board of management, the Duke of Devonshire is a member and also chairman of the executive council, who have delegated their powers to the hoard of management. This body of gentlemen will see an audited account put forward this week. The firth has gone over the whole of the accounts.

Sir A. BUTT: My query was rather whether that figure of £2,950,000 of
capital expenditure was a final figure, or whether there would be probably another million added to it.

Mr. SAMUEL: I have been long enough in commerce to know it is very difficult to know where the line should be drawn between capital expenditure and revenue expenditure. If there be a large expenditure necessary next year for maintaining the condition of the exhibition, I should not like, here and now, to say to which account that figure would be carried. I am sorry the hon. Member made a remark about "corruption." There is the Report to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, the Secretary for India, the President of the Board of Trade, the President of the exhibition, by the present Secretary for Home Affairs. Here is a paragraph to which I would draw the attention of the House. This Report (Command Paper 1799) says:
The granting of concessions for entertainments and amusements suggests lack of business acumen on the part of the authorities," etc.

Sir A. BUTT: That refers to a Report two years ago.

Mr. SAMUEL: This Report is 23rd January, 1923.

Sir A. BUTT: May I say that my observations referred to the period since that report was issued.

Mr. SAMUEL: Here is a charge, two years ago, similar to that made by the hon. Gentleman:
Although no definite charge of corruption was made, I consider it desirable to take notice of this suggestion, etc. I have formed the opinion that there is no corruption of any kind.
If the hon. Gentleman does make a charge. of corruption, I cannot help it. But I regret it. it will cause a great deal of unpleasantness. I think he said it in the heat of Debate. Perhaps he will be willing to withdraw the word and say anything else he likes, so long as he does not impute unworthy conduct. The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) made a point about labour conditions. The Government has only certain limited powers, and they are defined in the Exhibition Act of 1920. The Government has no control over the running of the exhibition, which is vested in the Board of. Management (of which Lord Steven-. son is Chairman). T have an extract here
from the Exhibition Act of 1920. When the original guarantee was given, the condition under the Act was that
the Exhibition shall be conducted by an Executive Committee and General Manager approved by the Board of Trade, and, second, that. the Executive Committee shall furnish the Board of Trade with such information with relation to the Exhibition at any time the Board of Trade may require.
What I say to the hon. Member for Bridgeton is that I will do anything within my power to see that nothing is done of which he or I would not approve. But my powers are limited and strictly defined by the Act. In order to put that pledge into operation, I have invited the hon. Member for Middlesbrough East (Miss Wilkinson) and the hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague) to come and see me in my room, and if they will put before me the points which they think I should take cognisance of, I will do all I can to see that nothing will take place of which this House would not approve. But they must remember that my powers are limited. The hon. Member for Bridgeton made one other point about the price of admission. He said that a lower charge would be more attractive and would probably bring more persons to see the exhibition. The charges could not have been too high, for no fewer than 5,000,000 children visited the Exhibition last year.

Mr. MAXTON: Special terms.

Mr. SAMUEL: Very well, then, it shows that the exhibition managers have in some degree agreed with the view of the hon. Member. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Ken-worthy) raised the question of Sunday opening. Do not let us try to jump that hedge till we get to it. No proposal has been brought before the Government that the exhibition should be open on Sundays this year; besides, it would be impossible without legislation to permit Sunday opening. Very probably, if there were Sunday opening it could only be done at a loss. He also asks me to hear in mind certain. other paints. Note will be taken of his suggestions, and they will come before the exhibition authorities for consideration. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton) has asked a
question about the guarantee. The Government are committed to nothing more than the figures stated in the, White Paper. I cannot foretell the future, but I hope we may not have to come before the House on a future occasion. A question was asked by the hon. and gallant Member for South Hackney (Captain Garro-Jones) about poisoned food. One cannot, of course, ensure that all foods, either at exhibitions or anywhere else, will be wholesome. If you could really guarantee that, a great many more people would oat oysters. I am sure, however, that everything possible will be done to see that only wholesome food is supplied, especially as those responsible render themselves liable to proceedings by a customer if the food is not of a proper nature. With regard to his point about disabled men who desire to visit the exhibition, if he will give me the facts I will go into them and ask what can be done.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Is the hen Gentleman in favour of the principle that disabled ex-service men should have free admittance?

Mr. SAMUEL: Of course I am in favour of helping disabled men; if the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put the facts before me I will, within my powers, do my best in the matter. I think I have answered all the points which have been raised in the Debate, and I hope the House will now agree to the Report stage of the Resolution.

Miss WILKINSON: It is quite true, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department has said, that he met my colleague the hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague) and myself with regard to labour conditions in the exhibition and has promised to meet us again to-morrow. When we met him, however, we were up against the fact, as he stated quite frankly, that he had no power to interfere in regard to wages and labour conditions at the exhibition. I understand when this Resolution is passed a new Exhibition Bill will have to come before Parliament, and as these arrangements are now being made, and as this House has not yet actually given the guarantee, I suggest that now, if ever, is the time for the hon. Gentleman to secure the insertion of such Clauses as are necessary and to take such
powers as are necessary to see that the labour conditions are what we desire them to be. I suggest there is no excuse at the present time for the hon. Gentleman to say that he cannot take up this matter. If the point were raised six months hence, when the exhibition is in full swing, it would be a complete answer to any complaint with regard to wages and conditions to say that the hon. Gentleman had no power, but we are tackling the problem just at the moment when the hon. Gentleman has the power to deal with the matter, before the money is paid and before the guarantee is given. It is the simple fact that unless this House does give the guarantee there will not be any exhibition.
I put it to the hon. Gentleman that this is more than an academic question and much more than a debating point. I will give him one instance. During the summer there was held in London the largest congress of labour women ever held in this country. Over 1,000 delegates and some hundreds of visitors attended, and I was on the arrangements committee which had made arrangements for chars-a-bane to take those women to Wembley on the excursion afternoon. It was just following on the exposure made with regard to the conditions under which the waitresses were working, and the result was that, instead of taking at least 50 vehicles as we had hoped, we had to cancel the order at the last minute, and not one-tenth of the people who had promised to go actually attended. Even from the commercial point of view, which, I am sure, necessarily weighs largely with the hon. Gentleman, it is had business in an exhibition which is intended to appeal to the workers of this country to have dragging on this feeling that working conditions at Wembley are sweated.
The second point which I think the hon. Gentleman might easily take power to deal with is with regard to the representation of the staff at Wembley. One of the main difficulties last year was that. matters which, dealt with in an ordinary way by an ordinary trade union official, could have been put right in a very short time were made tremendously difficult by the attitude which certain exhibitors and contractors took up in refusing to meet trade union officials or to deal with the
staff except individually. I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that this most reactionary attitude was taken up by certain of the exhibitors, and I am sure he does not agree with it. Would it not be possible on this occasion to make arrangements for a joint council of exhibitors and staff representatives to see, right at the beginning, that these matters were settled and everybody allowed to know that there is not to be any feeling in that respect?
Apart from the labour question, might I also ask him, as a member of a local authority, if it would not be possible to improve—I say it with all diffidence—the manners of the board of management in dealing with local authorities? I know the Manchester Corporation felt that it was the victim of rather bad manners on the part of the people running the exhibition. I have no doubt that. was quite unintentional, and I know we were dealing with business men who were pressed, but there is no doubt the treatment which Manchester received from the board of management was responsible for that very great city not only refusing to take its civic fortnight. last year but refusing to take it this year as well. I know that many other local authorities feel sore at the very cavalier way in which they were. treated by the somewhat high-handed military gentlemen at the head of the exhibition. I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department that a gentle word from so persuasive a gentleman as himself might have the effect of smoothing over the difficult situation which has arisen.

Mr. MONTAGUE: I did not desire to intervene in this Debate, in view of the agreement of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department to meet myself and my colleague (Miss Wilkinson), who has just spoken on the question of labour conditions, and I only do so because of the hon. Gentleman's suggestion either that he has no power in this matter or that his power is extremely restricted. If that be the case, no time should be lost by those who stand for the interests of the workers at Wembley in bringing the matter before the House. They should secure every appropriate opportunity possible to ventilate the grievances which are felt., and try to make possible some
arrangement to avoid the difficulties which occurred last year. May I draw the attention of the House to one or two of the things which are in the minds of the representatives of the workers at Wembley. There is a joint committee of Wembley workers, and they are in the position that no representative of the workers earl, except by underhand methods, get upon the ground at the present time in order to deal with any dispute between those employed and those responsible for the employment. The joint committee of Wembley workers suggest that there should be a, committee, but not one composed of workers' representatives only. They do not suggest that there should be a special committee, exclusively of Wembley workers, to act as a kind of strike committee or something of that nature, but they suggest that there should be a permanent committee representing both the exhibition authorities and the workers. That committee, they suggest, should sit at stated intervals in order to go over the difficulties and grievances which the working people at the exhibition desire to bring before the management. Had that been done last year, and had it been possible to ventilate these grievances in time, the unofficial strike would never have occurred. I can give my word to the House on that question.
I pass to what has been suggested as a typical instance of the kind of hopelessly inefficient management rather than bad will which created difficulties last year. The girls employed at Wembley were charged 12s. a year for lavatory accommodation, and men were charged 25s. a year. Apart from that payment, which was absurd in itself and very irksome, the lavatory accommodation for women was exceedingly inefficient. Towards the end of the exhibition some modifications were made, but it was still impossible for girls employed in the centre of the exhibition to avail of lavatory accommodation in order to brighten themselves up after perhaps a half-clay's work without walking more than a quarter of a mile there and a quarter of a mile back, after being on their feet for a prolonged spell of work. The result was a tremendous amount of dissatisfaction among the girls, and that indicates the kind of petty annoyance which could be obviated if the matter were taken in hand in time. So far as
wages are concerned, the complaint of the joint committee of Wembley workers is more against the exhibition itself than against some of those firms and concessionaires who have been referred to. In the Amusements Park, I am given to understand, the wages of men last year were £
10s, per week, and of women £3 per week, whereas those employed directly by the exhibition authorities were paid £3 per week in the case of men and £2 7s. per week in the case of women. 1 need not point out that these differences make for dissatisfaction, and it is desirable that the staff should be a satisfied staff. In view of what the hon. Gentleman has said as to his powers being limited, the House should, before granting this money, see that these questions are ventilated.

Mr. LIVINGSTONE: I think that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department should give the House an undertaking now that, before he comes to the House again to ask for more money for this exhibition, he will make it a condition that a satisfactory balance-sheet must be laid before the House.

Mr. BECKETT: I think we all join in admiring the way in which the hon. Gentleman opposite has stood up for the continuation of the exhibition this year, but my personal view is that, unless drastic steps are taken with regard to organisation, this year's exhibition is foredoomed to failure. I notice in the Press that the hon. Gentleman and his advisers have decided that on one day in every week they will put up the price of the exhibition, in order that, presumably, it may be reserved and made more exclusive for people who have serious business to do there. I am not in a, position to say whether or not that is a wise step—I have very grave doubts—but it may be that it is justified. What I am quite sure of, however, is that whether or not it is, good business to make one day a week a very expensive day at the exhibition, it would be extremely good business, and would very likely save the exhibition, if one day a week could be made a cheap clay at the exhibition.
Last year, we have already heard—and T think hon. Members in all parts of the House are prepared to agree—the labour and wage conditions were not as they should have been. The chief impression
that I got of the exhibition on the one or two visits which I was able to pay was that the chief distinguishing marks of the British Empire Exhibition were low wages and high prices, and I do not think that those are calculated to improve the prestige of the country organising the exhibition. The prices of almost every kind of entertainment or amusement at the exhibition were most unusually high. I know it may be argued that people ought 'to go to the exhibition in order to walk round and see the machinery, and industries, and so on, and that is a very good argument in theory, but in practice you will find that, if you are going to get large numbers of people going back to the exhibition again and again, they have to have the lighter side catered for as well, and unless prices are reduced this year, and some pains are taken to see that seating accommodation, shelter, and amusement prices are lowered, it is quite impossible to hope for a large attendance of the poorer people, and if you do not get the poorer people there, it will not be a success, because there are not enough of the other people to make it pay.
I was sorry to hear that the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenwarthy) expressed a very strong wish that the exhibition should not be opened on Sundays. I am afraid I cannot quite understand that. Here you have, within reasonable reach of London, an exhibition whose gardens and layouts, we are told, are going to be extremely beautiful, even better than they were last year, and here you have large masses of the population, who need the open air and the opportunity to see landscapes and flowers which they do not see every day. There are no protests against Kew Gardens and Hyde Park being open on Sundays for people to go into, so why should there he all this ferment about letting the workers of London go out to their own exhibition on a fine Sunday afternoon or evening and listen to a hand? We do not hear of protests because there are bands at the seaside resorts to which the hon. and gallant Member, probably, and his friends go, and why should not the workers, who cannot afford to go to seaside resorts for week-ends, have the benefit of a band beside the lake at
Wembley? My suggestion would be that the price should be reduced. I am not suggesting that the amusement park should be opened, or anything of that sort.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Why not?

Mr. BECKETT: I do not see any reason why not, but I am afraid that public opinion in this country would be against me on that particular point. Personally, I would open the whole lot.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Public opinion is in favour of golf on Sundays.

Mr. BECKETT: The hon. Member forgets that there is still a puritanical streak in the working classes of this country which is not reflected in their masters. Directly the suggestion is made that healthy, picturesque, cheap amusement should be provided for the working classes, we are told that it cannot be done because it would be breaking the Sabbath, or that there is some law, that was passed many hundred years ago, to stop it. [An HON. MEMBER "No!"] An hon. Member says "No," but I have read the Reports of the Debate on Wembley in this House last year, when it was suggested that it should be opened on Sunday, and some obsolete law, passed in I forget what ancient king's reign, was quoted as a reason against it being opened. If Governments have any use in the world, one of their chief uses should be to rid us of obsolete and hampering laws of that description. I believe you will enormously increase the prospects of the exhibition this year if you will throw it open on Sunday at a reduced price, and engage good bands, not necessarily opening the exhibitors' section. I quite understand that that is a matter for the exhibitors to consider, and that we cannot expect them to keep their places open seven days in the week, but, with regard to the other labour, I want to impress on the right hon. Gentleman that, if the exhibition is opened on Sundays, it must not be made an opportunity to work men seven days a week. It must be made an opportunity to give men one day's work a week who would not otherwise have any work at all.
I hope the Government will consider making one day in the week a cheap day, as cheap as they can possibly make it. There are many hon. Members in this
House who have an intimate knowledge of the entertainments industry, and it is obvious to all of us who have even run a penny bazaar for a political party, or anything of that sort, that it pays much better—it is so in every form of business—to get a large number of small orders or small customers than to sit in solitary state waiting for somebody to come along who is rich enough to- give you as much business in half an hour as otherwise you would have had in a day. I hope that that will be considered, that we shall have a cheap day at the exhibition, and that the Government will use their influence with the exhibitors and the contractors in the amusements park to get them to make it a cheap day inside the exhibition as well as a cheap day for going through the turnstiles.
I have not yet heard whether the rule that was introduced towards the end of last season, reducing the price of admission in the evening, is going to be maintained this year. It was introduced only after a great deal of pressure, and if you are going to get large numbers of Londoners to go out on a fine evening for an hour or two at Wembley, you will find it a very great inducement if you will allow the reduced price that you did towards the end of last year. The third suggestion that I want to make—and I ask that it should be considered carefully—is that the exhibition should be regarded not only as an entertainment, but is a- great open space, and that it should he open to as many people as possible on every day of the week, and at a reduced price on Sundays.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by Mr. Amery, Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister, Mr. Guinness and Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel.

Orders of the Day — BRITISH EMPIRE EXHIBITION (GUARANTEE) BILL,

"to amend the British Empire Exhibition (Guarantee) Act, 1920, and the British Empire Exhibition (Amendment) Act, 1922, by increasing to one million one hundred thousand pounds the amount up to which a guarantee may be given thereunder, and by extending the operation of the said Acts to any loss resulting from the holding of the British
Empire Exhibition in the year nineteen hundred and twenty-five," presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 89.]

VALUATION (METROPOLIS) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Neville Chamberlain): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This is a very short Bill, containing only one operative Clause-, but it is a Bill which is of very great importance to the inhabitants of London, and particularly to the tenants of the smaller houses, whose interests it is designed to safeguard and to preserve. Although it is only a short Bill, I am afraid 1 can hardly describe it as self-explanatory. I hope, however, in the course of the observations that I am going to make, to be able to make it clear to the House what it is that the Bill is designed to effect and the method by which it is proposed to carry out that design. I would preface my remarks by reminding the House that what I have to say applies to London only, because the methods of valuation in other parts of the country are somewhat different from those that obtain in the Metropolis. Probably hon. Members are aware that the- method of valuation in the Metropolis is governed by an Act of Parliament which was passed as long ago as 1869, and, among other things, that Act of 1869 provides that there shall be a fresh valuation every five years, and it is because the period for a. fresh valuation is now coming round that I have presented this Bill to the House.
There are two taxing authorities who are concerned in these valuations. There is the Inland Revenue Department, which is concerned for purposes of national taxation, and there are the rating authorities in the metropolis, who are concerned with local taxation, and the peculiarity of the situation is that both of them base their calculations upon the same valuation list in London, which is conclusive as regards what is called the gross value, both for Inland Revenue and for local rating purposes. The valuation to he made is prepared, in the first
instance, by the overseers, who submit their provisional valuation lists to the assessment committees. The assessment committee is in form the first judicial authority; that is to say, any ratepayer and the surveyor of taxes can challenge any item in the valuation list. It is only after having heard any objection that may be made that the assessment committees then fix the gross value in the valuation list, and, subject to appeal to a sessional court, that valuation list then becomes a valuation list which is conclusive as to the value of any particular property, both for local and national taxing purposes. I hope that, if I say anything which is rather elementary, those who are familiar with these matters will forgive me, because they are rather complicated and technical, and it is possible that there may be some who are not familiar with them. Let me, therefore, first tell the House what we mean by gross value. It is defined in the Act of 1869 as follows:
The term 'grass value' means the annual rent which a tenant might reasonably be expected, taking one year with another, to pay for an hereditament, if the tenant undertook to pay all usual tenant's rates and taxes, and tithe commutation rent-charge, if any, and if the landlord undertook to hear the cost of the repairs and insurance, and the other expenses, if any, necessary to maintain the hereditament in a state to command that rent.
That, then, is the gross value, which is first established by the assessment committees. Of course, that gross value is not an actual value upon which are levied either taxes or rates. Those taxes and rates are levied upon a net value, which is arrived at by deducting from the gross value certain allowances for repairs and maintenance, but whereas the gross value is common both to the national and the local taxation, when we come to the net value, there the two part company, and the allowances which are permitted for the repairs and maintenance follow two different Statutes. In the case of national taxation, they follow the Finance Act, and in this case it is the Finance Act of 1923, Section 28, which gives the various classes of allowances to be made. But in the case of the local taxation, to obtain the rateable value, that is, the net value upon which rates are levied, you have to turn to this same old Act of 1869, to which is appended a Schedule, which classifies the various
classes of property which have to be valued, and puts against each class the allowances which may be made for the purposes of finding the rateable value.
The last valuation took place in 1920, and at that time the permitted increases of rent which are allowed under the Rent Restrictions Acts had not come into force. Consequently, in assessing the value of houses that came under the Rent Restrictions Acts, the old valuation was followed, that is, the valuation for five years before that; in other words, the valuation of 1915. Therefore, no question of increased assessment in consequence of increased rents arose in 1920, but to-day the situation is different. The rents can be raised, for the most part, by 40 per cent. above the pre-War standard, and we have to consider what should be the increase in the assessment of the house in respect of which this increased rent is being charged and obtained. It is, of course, from the point of view of the Revenue, extremely important that full account should be taken of this increase in rent. It is important that landlords who are receiving this increased rent should not escape any part of their proper share of Income Tax, because, if they did, it would, obviously, be very unfair to other payers of Income-Tax, not only in the Metropolis, but, in other parts of the country where assessments have already been put up.
Therefore, it is to the interest of the surveyor of taxes to see that in the new assessments the full 40 per cent. is added where this increased rent has been obtained. Now see what is the effect of that upon the rateable value. If the deduction for repairs remains as it has always been up to now in accordance with the Act of 1869, then any increase in the, gross value means an equivalent increase in the net or rateable value, and since the landlord can pass on to the tenant any increase in rates, it follows that to increase the assessment without increasing the deduction for repairs would be to increase the outgoings of the tenants of those houses which now fall under the Rent Restrictions Acts. Therefore, there has naturally arisen a demand that some increased allowance for repairs and maintenance should be permitted before arriving at the rateable value. We have endeavoured in this Bill to meet. that demand. In the first part of the Schedule we have set forth the same scale of allowances for maintenance and repairs as
is now permitted under the Finance Act of 1923; that is to say, the first part of the Schedule assimilates the procedure, in the ease of rateable values, to what is already the case in respect of Income Tax. While that may be very fair and very reasonable in regard to a good number of the properties which are concerned, it does not altogether meet the case of those houses, and especially the smaller class of houses, which have now come under the Rent Restrictions Acts. What we have done, therefore, is to supplement that first scale of allowances—much more favourable, as it is, than the allowances given under the Act of 1869—by a further scale of allowances, which gives increased advantage to the tenant, and that is what is to be found in the Second Schedule to the Bill.
Having explained what are the objects of the Bill, I might, perhaps, come to the Clauses themselves. The first sub-section of Clause 1 simply substitutes, in respect to these classes of hereditaments, that is, the small houses, the Finance Act allowances for the scale which is provided in the Schedule of the Act of 1869. But seeing that that is not, in those particular cases, sufficient for our purpose, we have introduced in the proviso what is in effect an alternative. Where the first allowance is insufficient, a second allowance may be substituted for it, and the second part of the Sethedule comes into effect. This proviso is a fine example of Parliamentary draftsmanship, and, I think, will afford some gratifying mental exercise to those who like to try their minds upon it. It is certainly not very intelligible at the first perusal, and I dare say that some hon. Members may care to try their hand at expressing the same meaning more precisely when we come to the Committee stage. But I say that if you set your mind to this proviso, and once grasp the principle embodied in it, then I do not think you will have any further difficulty, and I may say, in confirmation of that, that the assessment authorities themselves have expressed the view, not only that it is perfectly clear to them, but that they think it will be quite easy to work in practice.
I am going to try to paraphrase what this proviso says, for the convenience of hon. Members who have not yet entirely mastered it. It is a long one. There are 153 words in it, without a full stop, and
there are perfect nests of parentheses. I would ask hon. Members to be good enough to bear in mind one or two points we have in view. First of all, we want to ensure that the Inland Revenue is going to get its pound of flesh, in other words, that there shall be no temptation to the assessment authority not to put up the assessment to the full 40 per cent. on account of any consideration of any injustice which might thereby be caused to the tenant, and, in the second place, we want to ensure that no injustice shall be caused to the tenants by protecting their interests and allowing the other scale. Therefore, in effect, what the proviso says to the assessment authorities is this: We have given you here a scale of allowances which is intended to enable you to put up the assessment by the full 40 per cent. Of course, if you choose not to put it up by 40 per cent., you can put it up by something less; but, if you do, you will be no better off, because then you will have to reduce your scale of deductions, so that the net result will be the same as if you took the full scale and the full assessment. I do not know if I have succeeded in making that clear to the House, but I think hon. Members will find that is a short summary of the rather complicated formula which they will find in the Bill.
I will next try to convey better to the minds of hon. Members how this will work in practice by giving one or two concrete instances of the effect. Let me take a house the gross value of which in the valuation before last was £15. Hon. Members will recollect that I explained that the valuation in 1920 practically followed the one in 1915, and, therefore, I take the 1915 valuation as corresponding to what we generally call pre-War value. Assuming that the assessment on that house is increased by the full 40 per cent., that will give you a gross value up to £21. In 1916, after using the scale of deductions then in force, the rateable value of that £15 house would have been £12. If, after increasing it by the full 40 per cent., we still maintained the old 1869 deductions, the rateable value, instead of £12, would now be £17. Under our scale, to be found in Part II of the Schedule of this Bill, it is brought back again to £12. In the case of a £30 house, the rateable value in 1916 would have been £24. If we left the 1916 scale
in force it would be £35, assuming the gross value to be put up 40 per cent., but under our scale we have brought it down to £26. Take another example—a house of the gross value of £60. The old rateable value would have been £50. If we had taken the 1869 Act it would have been £70, but under the new Schedule it is brought down to £58. In the case of a £100 house, the old rateable value would have been £84. If the 1869 scale were left in force, it would be £117, but under our scale it comes down to £102.
I think there are two considerations that may, possibly, occur to hon. Members after hearing those figures. The first one is that the allowance becomes less favourable as you go up in the scale of values. That is to say, the lowest class of house gets the greatest advantage. The second consideration is that in the highest scale, although the allowances now are much more favourable than they would have been if the 1869 Act had been left where it was, nevertheless they do still show some increase over 1916. I would say, in comment upon that, that one must bear in mind the probability that the rateable value of the whole district will be increased by this new valuation. We are not dealing only with houses, but we are dealing with buildings other than houses, and, on the whole, therefore, I think one may fairly contemplate the probability that there will be some increase in the rateable value; but, if that be so, unless the expenditure increases, there must be a diminution in the poundage, and, therefore, even if the rateable value of a particular property be increased, it does not follow that the actual rates to be paid in respect of that property will also increase. They may—and I am quite sure in some cases they will—be actually less than they were before.
The second paragraph in the proviso deals with three special cases. There is the case of the new house; 8.0 P.M. there is the case of the house which has been so reconstructed that it has practically become a new house; and there is, finally, the house which is not under the Rent Restrictions Acts at all, and is out of control, and, probably, may have been increased more than 40 per cent. It is quite clear it is impossible
to lay down a hard-and-fast rule which would be applicable to every one of these cases, and, therefore, what we do here is to say that the allowances may not in any case be greater than those which are allowed in the second part of the Schedule, but that they may be determined within those limits in such a way as may appear equitable, having regard to all the circumstances of the case. The second Sub-section of the Clause represents one other small concession, but one to which some importance has been attached by the assessment authorities and the borough, councils. It provides that where the application of the new scale results in a fraction of a pound in the rateable value, that that fraction has to be disregarded.
I have explained to the best of my ability the meaning of the Clauses of the Bill. I would only say in conclusion that the Bill is not only approved in its present form by the borough councils and by the assessment authorities, but that they are very anxiously awaiting its passage into law, because, as the House will quite understand, this is about the time of the preparation of the valuation lists, and it is essential for them, therefore, to know at the very earliest moment the scale of deductions so that they may be prepared to deal with the situation.

Mr. WEBB: I do not know whether I may venture to express my congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman on having really gone a very long way to make this extraordinarily complicated Measure clear. It has been a masterpiece of exposition, and I certainly have not risen to express any dissent, or any desire to resist the Second Reading tonight. There are, however, one or two questions I should like to ask. It may be—I think it is very likely—that I have failed to understand some of the points that the right hon. Gentleman has made. The right hon. Gentleman in his explanation said that the Act applies not only to the small houses und-r the Rent Restrictions Act hut also to all the hereditaments of London. I can quite understand the reason for bringing into an extremely complicated scheme the houses which have been restricted under the Rent Restrictions Act. But I cannot at first sight see why in connection with the thousandpound-a-year house, which has not been
at all affected by the Rent Restrictions Act, there should be any change in the valuation or in the amount of deduction allowed. There are some houses assessed at £1,000 a year, where there is no question of the Rent Restrictions Act, and, so far as I can make out, the occupier or owner of such a house, in respect of the assessment of the rateable value, and assuming the gross value is £1,200, is entitled to make a reduction of one-sixth as the maximum amount. In practice, so far as I can observe, the maximum is practically always allowed. Therefore, there would be a deduction of £200 from the gross value on that house in order to arrive at the rateable value. I am not personally concerned in a house of that magnitude, nor do I feel particularly inclined to press the claim of such owners and occupiers.
The last item in the Schedule called Part II deals with houses and buildings the value of which exceeds £150. The maximum amount of reduction that can ever be allowed in order to arrive at the rateable value is £40. I do not understand that. It seems to me that under the present law, as the occupier and owner of that house is entitled to a deduction of one-sixth of the gross value, if the gross value is going to be more than £250 it seems to me there is going to be a smaller deduction. I do not know whether it is desirable that there should be a smaller deduction, and it may be that the average cost of repairs and maintenance comes to one-sixth of the rent. Indeed, I do not find that the amount of repairs and maintenance diminishes as the rent goes up What is the reason for including in Part II of the Schedule that ease where the increased gross value exceeds £150 and in which the maximum amount of deduction is only to be £40? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will make that clear. Again, I cannot quite make out proviso (a) and proviso (b) in Clause 1, which seems to me to be intended to be mutually exclusive. It seems to me that some cases may fall under both provisoes. The definitions differ in each case. I only mention these to ask for some explanation of these instances in an extremely complicated Measure. There is one other point. In regard to Part 1, the right hon. Gentleman has told us that it follows the present arrangement with
respect to Income Tax. But I would point out that where the owner can show that on an average over a term of years the actual cost of maintenance has exceeded the deduction, he is allowed to claim the whole of the excess. I assume that that privilege is carried on, that it is not abrogated by this Bill, that the maximum amount of reduction does not prevent the man from making a claim, which I understand he can make, if his average expenditure over a term of years on repairs has been more than the deduction allowed. I will not take up any more time. There is no reason why the Second Reading of this Bill should not be taken before 8.15, but I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, if not now, at a later stage, to answer the queries that I have put to him.

Colonel VAUGHAN-MORGAN: I am sure the House is grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the explanation he has given of this very complicated Measure in introducing the Bill before us. He touched upon one point which 1 should like for a few minutes to develop. He explained that though the assessment of a house might be raised, it did not follow that the expenditure of the tenant liable to the rates would necessarily increase. Obviously, if the total amount levied over a given area. be not greater than before, then, if the increase in assessment be proportionate over the whole area, the total paid by each individual would not be greater. But in the Metropolis certain conditions obtain in the county area of London which do not affect the boroughs outside. We have a standard of level assessment in the inner area of the County of London which is higher than that generally maintained in the boroughs outside. And where we have, or should have, under this Bill the level of assessment increased, it seems, I submit, that the result in the County of London would be a greater contribution to the cost of joint services, the total of which is defrayed by the boroughs both in and outside the County of London. For example, it is calculated that under the provisions of this Bill the additional amount chargeable by way of rates on the inhabitants in the County of London, consequent on the levelling up of assessment, would be increased by a sum of something over £100,000 on the police rate alone. This would involve them in an additional charge beyond that paid by
the inhabitants of the outlying boroughs and relieve these latter to a corresponding extent. That is a point which it may not be necessary or possible to take into account in this Bill, but a point which, I submit, the right hon. Gentleman might well take into account when he comes to deliberate on the more important Measure which, we understand, is in. preparation to deal with rating and valuation throughout the Kingdom.
Personally I am no admirer of the Act of 1869. This Bill which is now before the House would do something at any rate to remove the objections which apply to it. It will undoubtedly make for the relief, encouragement, and comfort of the inhabitants of our city. But I should like to put it further to the right hon. Gentleman whether in the preparation of the Bill which is in view he will not consider rather the alteration of the basis of assessment in London, and bring it into something more comparable with the system which obtains outside, rather than adhere to the basis of the Act of 1869 for London. When we come to consider Income Tax, that is to say "Property Tax," under Schedule A, it is obvious that the landlord must pay the full rate of tax on the rent received, but it does not logically follow that because he has to pay a rent enhanced by the difficulties of the present situation the tenants should pay rates on an increased assessment. If we extended to the area of London the principle of adjusting assessment which obtains outside and in the county generally, we should get over our difficulty, and we should at any rate remove the injustice from which the inhabitants of the inner circle of London now suffer, as compared with the areas surrounding.
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would also take into account one other point. Under the Finance Act of each year the taxpayer assessed under Schedule A has the right of appeal to the Income Tax Commissioners. At the present moment and just prior to the commencement of the quinquennial period, I should like to put in a plea on behalf of the ratepayers that the same opportunity for appeal should be given annually during the period for which the assessment is fixed—a corresponding right to the appeal to the Income Tax Commissioners allowed with regard to the assessment under Schedule A.
Generally I should like to welcome this Bill very heartily. As I have said, I am sure it will relieve the minds of a great many Londoners of serious anxiety. It will simplify the position for them and it will restore, or tend to restore, justice to the inhabitants of London. It will, at any rate, reduce the incidence an the ratepayer's of London of the high standard of assessment which has been continuously adopted in London as compared to the area outside the county area, much to the credit of our Metropolis.

It being a Quarter-past Eight of the Clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means wader Standing Order Yo. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question, put.

NORTH METROPOLITAN ELECTRIC POWER SUPPLY COMPANY BILL [Lords] (By Order).

Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Mr. R. MORRISON: I beg to move to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words, "upon this day six months."
This is the last of a series of four electricity Bills that have come before this House, and I must say at the outset that the Government have not cut an edifying spectacle in the way in which they have treated us. All these Bills were on the Order Paper of the House last Session. It is common knowledge, as has been stated repeatedly, not only in this House, but outside, and in the Press, that last Session concessions were offered by the companies in return for the passage of the Bills. To the astonishment of Members who take an interest in these matters, we find when the Bills are reintroduced into this Parliament that these concessions have apparently been withdrawn, and up to now no satisfactory explanation has been forthcoming. The public are entitled to some explanation, not only in regard to this Bill, but
in regard to the first two Bills, and the Bill which was defeated last week. The public are also entitled to know why it is that the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon), who to-night, again represents the Ministry of Transport, still backs these Bills on behalf of the Government, although he knows perfectly well that last Session the companies offered to make concessions and have now withdrawn them. Ever since the last General Election we have been continually assured, in statements made by the Prime Minister and other members of the Government, that the whole problem of the future development of electricity in this country is receiving the constant attention of the Government, who are reviewing the whole position with a view to deciding upon a definite policy. Surely it would have been better under these circumstances to keep all these Bills back until the Government had decided what their policy was going to be. The suggestion has been made to me that perhaps the Government have made up their mind in regard to their policy, and I am strengthened in that opinion by a somewhat curious statement made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport when a former Bill was under discussion. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said:
I can say straight away that the passing of this scheme into operation would not run counter to any plans which the Government may have for a greater electrical development of the country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th February. 1925; col. 1426, Vol. 180.]
If that means that the Government's intentions are settled, and they intend as their policy for the future development of electricity merely to hand over increased, and ever increasing, powers to private companies to ride roughshod over local authorities, then we on this side of the House are prepared to challenge that position, not only in this House, but in the country, and to fight on behalf of the interests of the public and of the local authorities against the interests of private enterprise. The hon. and gallant Gentleman, in his speech last week, gave some interesting information, which was also evidently in the possession of the North Metropolitan Company, whose Bill we are discussing to-night. He said the present consumption of electricity in London amounted to only
130 units per person, whereas in America it was 500 units per person, and he went on to say that in his opinion we in London ought to reach, in 10 years' time, the same figure of consumption as America,. If we did, he pointed out that we should require to have an increase of 1,500,000 kilowatts during the next 10 years; in other words, three times the generation of electricity that we have to-day will have to be provided for during the next 10 years.
That brings me to this Bill, which, by the way, is not an extraordinarily important Bill, except that it is one of a series, all having the same object—the object which the North Metropolitan Company have steadily pursued ever since they came into existence—the object of stretching out their tentacles further and further, and closing in; like some huge octopus, upon district after district of Greater London, with a view to getting those districts under control. In this Bill the North Metropolitan Company are evidently looking forward with joy to the happy days when we shall be producing 500 units per person in London, and are hastening to stake out their claim. I will quote Clause 5 of the Bill. It says:
From and after the passing of this Act the limits within which the company may supply electricity for the purposes and under the powers of the Act of 1900 shall he extended so as to include the urban districts of Baldock, Bishop Stortford, Hitchin, Royston, Sawbridgeworth and Stevenage, and the rural districts of Ashwell, Buntingford, Hadham and Hitch in, all in the county of Herts.
The Bill not only increases the area, but gives power to charge up to 10d. per unit in new areas. On this side of the House we were all very much interested last week when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, in his eulogy of private enterprise in electricity, drew our attention several times to the fact that a company somewhere in the north called, I think, the North Eastern Company, supplies its customers with electricity at 1/2d. per unit. I am sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman will pardon us who represent London and outer London constituencies if we say we are more interested in a company near London than we are in the North Eastern Company in the north, and more impressed by the fact that this Bill proposes to give this company the power to charge not per unit but 10d.
It may be argued that at a prohibitive price like this the company cannot expect to do very much business. Whether they do or not, and I personally think they will do very little business indeed in these new areas, that makes all the more important the point that we on this side of the House are desirous of making, which is that, regardless of whether they do any business in the new territory which they propose to take over or not, they are staking out their claim for the future, and we are permitting them to do it. Ever since I have been a Member of this House, I have noticed that every time a Bill like this interfering with the powers of local authorities comes up, and some unfortunate Member on this side of the House quotes as an example West Ham or Poplar, or any of the other East End councils, supercilious smiles appear on the faces of many hon. Members opposite. One can almost hear them saying, "They are only socialist districts; we take no notice of what West Ham or Poplar does." For that reason I do not propose to refer to anything that West Ham or Poplar has done, but I would draw the attention of the House to the attitude taken up by what, in my judgment, is the most orthodox Conservative local authority in the United Kingdom. the Middlesex County Council. I feel perfectly sure mention of the Middlesex County Council will not provoke a sneer on the face of any hon. Member opposite. The complexion of the Middlesex County Council may be judged when I tell you that out of 79 members five are Labour, and most of the others are Conservative. There are only five Labour representatives, or there have been only five in the last council; there will be considerably more than five before this week is ended.

Captain GEE: You are an optimist.

Mr. MORRISON: The Parliamentary Committee of the Middlesex County Council had this Bill under consideration, and were so concerned about its provisions that they lodged a petition in the House of Lords alleging that the Bill was contrary to public interest, and it was contrary to the public interest that this company should obtain in perpetuity a virtual monopoly of the supply of electricity, and submitting that the com-
pany's undertakings should be purchasable by the joint authority when established. The Middlesex County Council Parliamentary Committee petition asked that a sliding scale of prices to consumers and dividends to shareholders should be inserted in the Bill for the protection of consumers, and that the prices proposed to be charged should be reduced after consultation with electricity experts. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ealing (Sir H. Nield) was at that time Chairman of the Middlesex County Council Parliamentary Committee, and they were advised that they had not a proper locus standi, and instead of proceeding with their petition in another place, they decided to accept an invitation to confer with the company.

Sir H. NIELD: If the hon. Member will accept my denial. I wish to state that I had left the Chair long before that question was considered.

Mr. MORRISON: I was not making any reflection upon the right hon. Gentleman.

Sir H. NIELD: I was a member of the Committee.

Mr. MORRISON: The right hon. Gentleman says he was a member of the Committee, but that he has ceased to be its Chairman. On the advice of the experts which the County Council Parliamentary Committee called to help them, they abandoned their position in the House of Lords against the Bill, and accepted instead an invitation to confer with the company. The company adopted the old couplet:
Will you walk into my parlour, Said the spider to the fly.
The result of the conference with the company was that the Middlesex County Council Parliamentary Committee were persuaded to abandon the first point of their opposition, "That this Bill is contrary to the public interest."
The second point was that there ought to be a sliding scale of prices for the consumer and dividends to the shareholders but then the company refused to consider anything concerning their finances, and the matter was dropped. Now I come to their third point the reduction of the proposed charges, and that was met by a promise from the company to insert a provision enabling the Middlesex County
Council to make application for a revision of the prices charged to the consumer; and with that very tiny concession the petition was withdrawn. I am not blaming the Middlesex County Council for withdrawing their opposition, because they were advised by their experts that they had no proper locus standi. The local authorities are in a much worse predicament in North London, and the area of this company, because they cannot afford to have continuous legal expense and the expense of engaging experts to fight this Bills. Consequently the company has been approaching these local authorities which gave them trouble one by one and they endeavoured to buy them out. The district of Southgate sold their powers for £5,000 a year to this company and other hon. Members will deal with other authorities where similar arrangements have been made for giving up their powers of purchase. No wonder a circular round asking Members of this House to support the Second Reading. As a matter of fact no opposition has been lodged except by two railway companies, and the opposition of the Middlesex County Council has been met. I have informed the House how that was done, and the company have been informed that there will be no opposition to the Bill in Committee except on one Clause dealing with the protection of railway companies.

Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: Does the hon. Gentleman mean to suggest that all the local authorities concerned have been bought up in that way?

Mr. MORRISON: I did not say that, nor did I even suggest it. I gave the case of Southgate, and I said other hon. Members would probably bring forward the cases of other local authorities. I can give the hon. Gentleman another case if he would like one, and that is the district of Tottenham.

Mr. HERBERT: I apologise for interrupting the hon. Member, but I thought his words rather tended to lead the House to suppose that the opposition of all the local authorities had been settled in the way he had alleged, and that is not so.

Mr. MORRISON: I had no intention of misleading the House in that way. This leads me to give this House the real attitude of the Middlesex County Council not only in regard to this Bill but in
regard to the electricity petition generally, and this is to be found in a resolution passed in October, 1923, when a general discussion took place at a meeting of the Middlesex County Council on electric supply generally, and in regard to the North Metropolitan Company in particular, and the following resolution was passed:
That the Parliamentary Committee be instructed to consult the London. County Council and other bodies necessary as to the steps which it is desirable to take in order to secure the constitution of a public Joint Electricity Authority in the metropolitan area.
For the past two years I have not been a member of the Parliamentary Committee of the Middlesex County Council myself, but I understand that that Committee did consult the London County Council, and that Council informed them that it was too late now to alter what had been done. Even if the London County Council did say it was too late it seems to me that it is never too late to mend. May I give the instance of Hornsey. For reasons which I have already given I have kept out of my instances Poplar and West Ham, and I am now dealing with the attitude of a very Conservative authority. In Hornsey I do not think the council has a single Labour member upon it. [An HON. MEMBER: "One!"] The Hornsey Corporation have their own electricity supply and they supply current cheaper than the North Metropolitan Company. Not long ago they wanted to increase their plant in order to keep pace with the demands for electricity in their area and the North Metropolitan Company kept them from doing so.

Sir H. NIELD: My hon. Friend must remember, if he is not acquainted with the proceedings in Hornsey, that after wards Hornsey was allowed by the Electricity Commissioners to extend its powers.

Mr. MORRISON: That is so, but it does not remove the fact that I am trying to impress upon the House that local authorities, who have their own electricity supply, such as Hornsey, are in a perpetual state of warfare with the North Metropolitan Company. May I give another example of the contempt with which these huge trusts treat municipal authorities? It will be found in
this particular Bill. If hon. Members will look at Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Clause 25, they will see there an extraordinary comparison of the way in which a company like this treats, firstly, municipal authorities, and, secondly, railway companies. Sub-section (2) of Clause 25 says:
Before the Company break up any street under the powers of this Section the Company shall (except in cases of emergency) give twenty-one clear days' notice to the local authority of the borough or district in which the street is situate of their intention so to do, and the Company shall in carrying out any works in such street and in reinstating the same conform to all reasonable requirements made by the local authority.
It will be noticed that it is not necessary for the North Metropolitan Company to get the consent of the local authority. It says:
The Company shall … give twenty-one clear days' notice to the local authority
that they are going to break up the street, and then they proceed to do it. If hon. Members will now look at the next Sub-section they will see the difference. In this case the company is not dealing with local authorities but—Greek is meeting Greek—they are dealing with railway companies, who are quite on their own level. When it comes to railway companies, Sub-section (3) says:
The Company shall not without the previous consent in writing of the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company, the London and North Eastern Railway Company or the Great Western Railway Company exercise the powers of this Section with respect to any street belonging to or forming the approach to any station or depot of any such railway company.
In the case of a local authority they give 21 days' notice and pull up the road, but when they are dealing with a railway company they dare not approach the place until they have got the consent of the railway company in writing.
I am opposing the Bill, because in this Bill the company is merely skimming the cream off the surface, and failing to satisfy the needs of ordinary consumers. I oppose it also, because I think the company is looking forward to the time when it will have to be bought out, and the powers which it is proposed should be given in this Bill will immensely increase the price which it will demand from the
public when the time comes for it to be bought out. I do not think that this House ought to confer upon a company of this sort, entirely free of charge, powers which will add immensely to the assets of the company. Finally, I oppose the Bill, because I think it is contrary to the public interest. Very great suspicion has been aroused in the minds, not only of many Members of this House, but of many of the public outside, in regard to this series of Bills. The Secretary of State for War, speaking from the Front Government Bench last week, put the matter in a nutshell when he said that he opposed the Bill which was then before the House—and there is not a great deal of difference between that Bill and the one with which we are now dealing—not because that Bill represented private enterprise, but because it represented the abuse of private enterprise I think the reason why a, great many Members on the other side of the House voted against that Bill, and succeeded in defeating it, last week—and I hope the same reason will actuate them again to-night—was that this series of Electricity Bills represents an abuse of private enterprise.

Mr. BROAD: I beg to second the Amendment.
I think we can hardly take too wide a view of the importance of this great question of the production and distribution of electric power in this country. I am convinced that it is one of the great national issues which will have to be faced on national lines before very long, if this country is to regain its industrial supremacy. I am convinced that the country which is best equipped for the production and distribution of electrical power on the most economic and scientific lines is the country which is going to reign supreme in industry in the near future. And that is not only so in regard to power and light. There are great developments which I believe will take place very shortly in electrolytic and other electro-chemical processes, and even, possibly, in the electrical decomposition of coal, on which researches are now being made, with a view to getting the full value out of the coal and doing away with our present furnaces. I believe that these developments will open up a very great future, and, with that in view, I hope the House will pause before it allows private interests to peg out
claims, not for the purpose of exploiting those areas or those claims, but in order to put them in a position of bargaining, with no termination at all to their powers, which are to be granted to them for all eternity. This point is especially worthy of consideration in this area of the North Metropolitan Company, because this area is being developed as a great industrial area. A great deal of money has been spent in widening the Lea navigation and in widening the locks so as to allow Thames barges to come up, and everything points to its becoming a great industrial area. Some of the Bills that have been before us during the last week were aspirations of companies, that were previously distributing companies, to develop as power companies. In this case we have a company which has had a long experience as a power company, and, if we want to examine what our future is to be, we must look into the record of that company so far as it has gone up to the present. If we do that we shall see, I think, that, instead of this great power company having served its customers more cheaply than the smaller municipal authorities, there is, in one corner of the area which they call theirs, the little borough of Finchley, which is able to produce and supply its current for lighting and power at a price considerably less than that charged by this tremendous company. We know by experience that, when this great power company has an added area at its disposal, it has, for all practical purposes, the sole right of distribution, because, once that company can supply its power, then, even within the area of any other district which 'might apply for a statutory order as a distributing authority, we find it taking away from that distributing authority the great levelling factor of the power load. It would be entirely in the hands of that great company, so that the authority would naturally be timid as to laying out any of the ratepayers' money in competition with the company. We find, therefore, that this Bill gives the company an absolute monopoly in its own sphere, and a right to compete in the spheres of other people.
We find that came factor in my own district of Edmonton. We parted with our distributing powers to this company,
and we have found that the company has only used Edmonton as a convenience for running its mains and. tearing up our roads. They have done practically nothing to provide a distributive supply for lighting purposes, and when, in 1921, we had power from the Ministry of Health to build close upon 2,000 houses on an estate in our district, and a contract was let for 500 houses, we accepted the limitation of an eight-foot ceiling on condition that we could have the electric light laid on. The mains of the company only go through our main road and one or two of the main cross country roads. They have not attempted to go down the side streets. We said, "Here is a block of 500 houses going up. Light them. You have the distributing powers." They said they could not undertake it. This is their letter:—
I am writing to you at Mr. Guy's request in connection with a meeting which was held by the Council a few days ago and, generally, on the subject about which I wrote you at considerable length on 23rd January of last year. I am afraid that, owing to the financial situation and the fact that we have yet to raise a considerable amount of capital to carry out our very extensive programme for the next year or two, we shall not be prepared to lay out the considerable sum required for the first 500 houses you contemplate erecting, which sum I estimate would be in the neighbourhood of £5,000, this including a high pressure main and sub-station and low pressure mains on the estate where the first 500 houses would be erected. Provided, however, the council are prepared to advance the money at 6 per cent. interest"—
at a time when we had to pay 7 per cent. for it
—"we, on our part, arc prepared to carry out the work on the lines which have been discussed and which are set out at some length in my letter referred to above.
This is a company which has obtained the privilege of power distribution because of the wonderful power of private enterprise. They have the distributing power in the district, and when we put to them an economic proposition for a compact body of 500 houses, they refuse to lay their main unless, in addition to giving away our powers, we find them money as well. Is that the kind of company the House is going to give extended powers to in perpetuity? I hope not. When it comes to finding money in other directions, we find that the adjoining district of Tottenham, at a critical point in the company's career last year, when this Bill was in
front of the House, were negotiating with this wonderful power company which could not find £5,000 to lay down their mains for an extension of their distributing powers. Tottenham has laid no money out. There were no assets to take over. But this company, thinking to influence the position, was prepared to say to Tottenham, "We will give you immediately £7,000, then we will give you £1,000 a year for three years, and then your present lease of the powers to us expires and we will pay you £9,000 a year for the remaining period of this lease." So that for the whole 25 years the power company is prepared to pay Tottenham £127,000. I can quite understand a local council in such a district, harassed as they are by the rising cost of things, being anxious to take that money, but I want the House to declare, and I think they will, that this is a most vicious principle, that Tottenham, because they came in at a critical moment, can be bought, and that the other districts have to pay for it because they did not come in at the critical moment. If the Bill goes through, when their powers come up for renewal they will not be in a position to bargain like that.
What does this mean in Edmonton? It means that the power and light users in Tottenham, besides paying their ordinary rates, will have to pay, as power users, an exceptional amount of rates in respect of their electric power. It is not fair to those users at all. It is as if a Government, anxious to reduce the Income Tax to a great combine, take over the General Post Office and say, "Pay £10,000,000 a year and you can charge your customers, the public, what you like." That is practically the position. Rights and powers are conferred on the company, but I defy anyone to say where are the duties and responsibilities which are imposed on the company and what power there is to see that they are enforced. This is a vicious thing because it is putting an extra pressure of rates on the very people who are maintaining the whole fabric of society, that is the industrial productive concerns. It is not the people who gamble on the Stock Exchange or corner commodities. The whole life of the community is based on our industrial concerns. They are the people who have to use the power. At present they are unduly pressed by what they con-
sider the unfair rating of machinery and if, in addition to that, they have to pay 50 or 100 per cent. more for their electric power to meet the charges of this company so that they can recoup themselves for what they are paying to the Tottenham Council it is a great injustice, and I should think if this House was filled with industrialists to-night, and not merely with financiers, they would vote wholeheartedly against the Bill as a lesson to the company that this kind of finance is not exactly straight business. That is one of the great things they have to recognise. I mentioned just now how they were serving us in Edmonton. They have had these powers many years. Edmonton is a highly industrialised district. My hon. Friend mentioned that the average consumption of electricity per head in London was 130 units per year. The average number of units used in Edmonton, where this company has a monopoly, is 24 units per year. There are some 13,000 premises in Edmonton. Of these, up to date, only 758 are connected up, and I make bold to say there are not, perhaps, 2,500 out of the 12,000 houses which are within reach of the cable and could get connected up if they wanted to, so has the company neglected the area.
We have heard of the efficiency of private enterprise. I believe a large number of hon. Members opposite are very concerned about private enterprise. Private enterprise, when it becomes monopolistic, requires very stringent watching and care and supervision. As the Bill makes no provision for that, as there are no obligations on the company, we are offering something which evidently, from what they are dealing out to Tottenham, must be valuable as far as that big area is concerned and we are getting no consideration in return, and I think the House will recognise that this is an unconscionable bargain when all the value goes on one side and there is no return on the other. I hope the House will take the matter very seriously into consideration because the much vaunted private enterprise stands condemned by the progress of this record during the many years it held its place. We all know why the North Metropolitan Electric Power Company was so anxious to handle our districts. They have sites on which to put their transformer stations and sub-stations for the tramways. It is remarkable in that connec-
tion, that the North Metropolitan Power Company and the North Metropolitan Tramways Company have their offices in the same building. I believe that the directors and the principal people are hand in glove. The tramways system of North Middlesex belong to the county council, but is leased to the tramways company, and on the trading of the tramways company they receive a certain proportion of the profits. The power comes from the North Metropolitan Power Company. It is remarkable that the power company can pay 10 per cent., while the tramway company is run at a loss. I think the matter requires very careful investigation, and I hope it will have such investigation when the county council's Tramway Bill comes before this House, as to whether the North Metropolitan Power Company is not using our tramway system as a milch cow for their own benefit.
These are very serious allegations—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]—but I think that I have shown enough, and that my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment has shown, by the financial dealings with the district council and the way they are prepared to silence opposition by what I would call wrong consideration—a consideration to which this Housee ought never to agree but ought to condemn in any company that adopts it—that there is something in the, financial arrangements of this company that should be looked at very carefully, especially when it comes in a group of companies that are acting together in the commercial field. We know what happens to a. great extent in regard to the passing of trade from one company to another. We have seen the great traffic combines at work, and we know how they can put the traffic underground or bring it above ground as they like. That sort of thing may be legal in private companies, but when it comes to companies they are asking us for monopolies in this way we say that there ought to be very careful supervision, that the power ought to he retained by Parliament and not given in perpetuity, so that Parliament can see that things are conducted on a fair basis in the interests of the community.
I hope that the general public will never regard with favour certain procedure, and I hope that this House will never accept it. I refer to the fact that when com-
panies come here their proposals in the interests of private concerns are so urged by certain hon. Members, who may be connected with associations which are engaged in backing private concerns, that the interests of private concerns become of greater regard than are the interests of the general community. In a degree, we are considering the same problem as that which we considered last week, because this Bill is extending the powers of a company, limited now to a certain extent, over a much wider area. I hope that the House will come to the conclusion that it cannot extend these powers any further, that the whole matter must be reconsidered, and that the Government will undertake its responsibilities and will investigate and come to their own conclusions and deal with the question of electricity from a national point of view. If, on the other hand, the Ministry of Transport, is going to support this Bill they will be doing something that is regarded as a precedent, and which may have a fatal effect upon the restoration of our industry and commerce.
I know full well that the argument may be put forward that this company wishes to raise another £500,000, and that they are going to extend their power stations and put in plant. No one is more concerned than I am to see more work in the engineering and electricity trades. For 30 years before I entered this House I was engaged in making electrical apparatus, and I have many of my own comrades who are out of work to-day, but for any company or for any debater to use such a point to press an interest which is not the right and true interest., is a very mean advantage to take of the plea of the unemployed. Therefore, I hope such arguments will not enter into the Debate to-night, that the Bill will be considered on its merits, and in the light of our experience of the transactions and operations of this power company.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT

(Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon): This is the third time within a fortnight that I have had to deal with electricity 9.0 P.M. problems. Certainly our last Debate was not without incident. It shows what a very complex human organisation the House of Commons is, because although the result of the last Debate was not particularly
gratifying to myself, I am certain that if it has brought any good to any body of men like the ex-service men, I, at least, am satisfied. When anybody in Essex for the next few years staggers up to bed holding a candle, their Members of Parliament will, I hope, explain that the lack of development of electricity in Essex is due to the King's Roll. Perhaps I had better say at once that the North Metropolitan Company is on the King's Roll, has been on the King s Roll since the King's Roll started, therefore, we can talk about electricity and not about something else. I have the further advantage in not having any Cabinet Minister at my back to help me in my deliberations.
There are a few points which I should like to clear up, after reading sonic of the Debates of the last fortnight. One hon. Member said that I had put forward the Government plan for the reorganisation of electricity in this country. That is not in any way a fact. All I said in connection with the two London Bills which have preceded this was that it was the duty of the Ministry of Transport to see that the organisation of London electricity under the arrangement of the two Bills and the setting up of a Joint Authority did not run counter to any re-organisation of electricity in this country. That is all that I can say on that subject, beyond this, that nobody who has studied this problem can think of anything else but that the re-organisation of electrical development in this country is wanted. It is, however, singularly complex. One meets with all sorts of difficulties. It would be out of place for me to say anything in regard to the possibilities of development over the whole country, until the matter has been more carefully considered. It is being considered every day.

Mr. WALLHEAD: We are afraid that you are going into it at the wrong end.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: I can assure the hon. Member that we approach it not from one side or the other. I hope he has appreciated what I have said in praise repeatedly of Manchester, and I hope he has appreciated also what I have said as to the results obtained by private enterprise. We approach it in quite a neutral frame of mind.
There is another point which I wish to mention. I am not in charge of this Bill. Some hon. Members have referred to me as if I were a promoter of the Bill. That is very unfair. The function of a Minister on these particular Bills is to state whether in his opinion it is against the public interest for such a Bill to proceed or whether he thinks that it is in the public interest that it should be proceeded with, get a Second Reading and go upstairs to be investigated. In my judgment, this Bill should receive benevolent support, and that is what I am endeavouring to give to it to-night. All these complicated questions must be thrashed out upstairs. Dealing with electricity, we never can speak of it without having this terrible question of private enterprise and municipal enterprise introduced, and I do not think that I should be contributing to this Debate if I were to avoid that issue.
We must not approach the question of the supply of electricity as if finality had been reached. No one can lay down the theory that we know all about the generation and distribution of electricity. There is very much yet to be learned. If every undertaking in this country were under municipal or national enterprise, they would all adopt the safe course, and it is due to private enterprise, in which people are able to risk their money on a gamble for increased profits, that advances of a technical character take place. On this point, may I draw attention to the position in America, where the consumption per unit per person is very much higher than here. There are many questions of a technical character, on which development has proceeded, which have not yet been fully decided. For instance, a municipal undertaking would not put down a plant to-morrow experimenting with steam pressure up to 1,200 lbs. No municipal undertaking would to-day use a steam pressure of more than 300 lbs.

An HON. MEMBER: Has any private enterprise in this country done it?

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: In the Midlands there is a plant running at 1200 lbs. to-day. Are we also to take it for granted that the three-phase system is really the last word in the distribution of electricity? There are to-day machines which show very attractive technical advantages over the three-phases
system. Nobody knows how these things are going to develop, and it is not within the province of a municipal undertaking to experiment along those lines, while it is legitimate for private enterprise to gamble along those lines, because if their experiment is a success, then perhaps they reap a certain benefit for themselves, but they also confer upon everybody else the benefit of the risks which they have taken.
There is nothing in this Bill which stops a local authority from becoming a supplier and distributor. They can apply to get an order to become a distributor, but it is well known by anybody who has studied this Bill, that it is not regarded as wise in this country that generation should be in the hands of a small plant, but that it should if possible be concentrated, with big bulk supplies to extensive areas. If one looks at this particular company one sees that that has been happening. The Willesden urban generating station has been taken on by request; Harrow has been stopped, and it takes power in bulk; Hendon has been stopped and takes power, and the Northwood company stopped, and they take power. The Metropolitan Electric Tramways Company also take power. The hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Broad) drew a picture which suggested curious conclusions as to the relations between the particular companies, but for the current supplied to the Metropolitan Electric Tramways I find that 1'28d. was the cost. In the case of the London County Council, the corresponding figure is 1'63d. I cannot see that any very serious conclusion can be drawn by the hon. Member as to there being anything wrong in taking current by a particular company if it is as low as that. It is an ordinary business proposition. Let me now approach some of the figures for last year, with coal at 28s. 9d. per ton, while, I understand, coal now at the station is down to 26s. 2d. We find that the figures were: Bulk supply, untransformed, '98d.; bulk supply, transformed, 1'28d.; large power consumption, transformed, 1'31 d.; domestic purposes, retail, 2d.—

Mr. R. MORRISON: What does "domestic purposes" cover? Does it mean 2d. for heating and 6d. for lighting?

Lieut.-Colonel MOOFRE-BRABAZON: Everything except lighting. The average for all classes including lighting is 3'47d. That would bring the lighting up to about 6d. This particular company asks for an extension of power. The hon. Member referred to skimming the cream of the trade in his district. Frankly I cannot see by any stretch of imagination that that particular district can be described as the cream of the trade.

Mr. MORRISON: I did not describe the new district as the cream of this trade. I endeavoured to convey to the House that they had skimmed the cream off Edmonton and other places, and that they had left the great hulk of the people uncatered for.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: This new area is a very difficult area to exploit. There is no alternative promised as to who should do it. The question really is: are you to leave it fallow, and have nothing done, or allow a private company to develop it? Are you to leave great gaps in the country unprovided with electricity until you can re-organise the whole thing or are you going to allow fixed distribution to proceed and then bring that into your organisation? What is the company proposing to do? It has four stations: Brimsdown generating plant, 23,000 kilowatts; Willesden, 25,000 kilowatts; Hertford, 1,700; and St.
Albans, 1,430. I understand that money is required to increase Brims-down. That is to be connected with Willesden, and the other two stations are to be closed clown and main transmission lines are to be laid. As to development., there is this imposed on the company: first of all from the point of view of the area which comes within the sphere of the London and Home Counties Joint Authority, the company has to submit to that authority a technical programme. The whole of that technical programme will advance together. From the point of view of new business the company give an undertaking and they are compelled to put before the Electricity Commissioners within two years a definite plan of development, and the Commissioners will examine this scheme and amend it or improve it as they wish. As to price, I do not think there is anything very extraordinary about it, because the Middlesex County Council, as has been
said, have become one of the bodies that have asked for a revision of prices every three years. It is along the line of revising prices every three years that I think the price will be cut down. Hon. Members have seen what are the prices to-day. There is no reason to suppose that there will be any exploiting of the community at large in the future. I see nothing revolutionary and nothing to which great exception can be taken. Nor do I think there is any Machiavellian principle behind the promotion of this Bill. It seems quite a useful extension of power, and I ask the House with great respect to allow the Bill to have a Second Reading, so that it can go upstairs.

Mr. SNELL: I am sure that the House, and especially those on this side of it who have listened to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport on these four Bills, will pay a very hearty compliment to him for his courtesy in trying to meet our criticism on these occasions. In the few minutes at my disposal I do not propose to deal with the question whether this company is reputable or otherwise, or whether there is any special advantage as between private enterprise and public enterprise. What I wish to do is to draw the attention of the House to a rather different matter. In this question it may be said that those of us who are London Members have very little real interest in a Bill which affects Hertfordshire and Essex. But in the course of the development of our national life, it is extremely probable that the powers of London will extend over the particular area. with which this Bill deals, and that will make the complication that exists still more pronounced when that time comes. Therefore, we London Members have a very real interest in this matter. The, Parliamentary Secretary has admitted that there is a considerable need for reorganisation. One could not help feeling that he has had a particularly thankless task placed upon him in connection with these Bills. The tone in which he presented his defence of them seems rather to suggest that he would have been !pleased if fate had allowed him to postpone them until the issues of reorganisation were made clear.
The real point put by the hon. and gallant Gentleman was that it was just
a gamble whether it was wiser to wait until reorganisation took place or whether it would be to the public advantage to give this company immediate powers. As between those two issues I for one would prefer to wait. After all, certain portions of Hertfordshire and Essex have done without electric light for a good many years, and if we proceed with this Bill, we tie them up for ever to a particular form of electric light and power. As between those two evils, the evil of waiting a little longer for the benefit of the light that we want to confer upon them and tying them up so that they are imprisoned under a certain set of regulations made before we know what the actual needs are, I would prefer the process of waiting. The Parliamentary Secretary said that 'this company was really gambling, that it was almost conferring a public service by offering to undertake these onerous and possibly unprofitable duties in this area. I know there is a good deal of bravery about public companies, but this one, at any rate, seems to have been gifted with the faculty of taking every precaution to see that its losses in the public service were not serious.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: I think the hon. Gentleman misrepresents me a little. What I tried to say was that private enterprise was much more prone to gamble in new development than was municipal enterprise.

Mr. SNELL: Of course I do not wish to misrepresent the Parliamentary Secretary. The question, from our point of view, is not whether this particular company is asking for privileges which may be safely given or not. The point is that we are at a period when we do not know what it is wise to do. We are entering upon a new industrial era which may he of the very greatest moment to the future of our country. Because of that, it would seem on every ground wise that the House of Commons should not put a barrier in the way of future development which would be of enormous assistance to our industrial future, by passing this Bill which would tie our hands in some way. The Bill provides for an extension of the area of operations of this company in Hertfordshire and Essex and to the outer fringe of London. It touches Tottenham and Edmonton and Enfield and Wood
Green. But if the principle on which these power companies work is wrong fundamentally, then any expansion of their privilege is worse. Our view is simply that it is injudicious. It may be highly dangerous for a community to place the supply of an essential service under the control of any privileged company without providing for frequent opportunities for the community to escape from the toils in which it has been bound. Electricity is one of the vital services of the present time. It may become of the very first importance to the development of our nation and because of that the nation ought to keep its hands clean. It ought not to tie itself up, even with so estimable a company as I am sure this is. It ought to reserve the power in its own hands. May I explain what I think is the harm that those power companies may do. First of all they may, if they wish—and they very frequently do wish—hold up the development of the electrical supply in any area until it suits them. I am not uttering a word of complaint against this company. It is a commercial company engaged in business, and has just the same aims as any other commercial company in the world. Its aim is to make a commercial success of this undertaking and provide itself with profit. Its aim is not to supply a public service whether there is a loss or not. We may take it for granted that a power company of this kind would not seek to develop any area until returns from that area would bring to it what it considers a satisfactory profit which can be shown on the balance-sheet.

Mr. HANNON: As a matter of fact; this company has been developing at a loss.

Mr. SNELL: That is a miscalculation. It did not go into business for the purpose of making a loss. That is a misfortune which often befalls gentlemen who go into business with that end in view. This Bill gives a monopoly without any effective control over prices; it gives them a monopoly which is in perpetuity. It provides no opportunity for the community to assume control over the undertaking, and because of that gamble with the future needs and liberties of the community it seems to me that this Bill ought to be opposed. Another point is
this, that these power companies have frequently stood in the way of development. Whatever the desire of this company may be to serve the public in the face of a loss as has been suggested, other companies have stood against electrical development for their own particular account.

Mr. HANNON: Give us an example.

Mr. SNELL: I will take a particular example. Take the East Kent Company, which obtained its powers in 1905. It has done practically nothing to develop public service in the area it has covered, but it has time after time. opposed applications from other companies that wanted to give service in that particular area, for the simple purpose of reserving to itself, until the time was suitable for a profit, these particular opportunities. Take the case of the Borough of Retford, which is now engaged in promoting an Order. That is opposed by the Derbyshire Electrical Power Company, who obtained their powers 22 years ago, but have not made in those 22 years the slightest effort to provide the Borough of Retford with the electrical service it needs. These power companies claim the right to say to any particular area, "We will not, and you shall not. We will keep you in darkness until it will provide us with an opportunity for making profits." Take the Boroughs of Sheffield and Rotherham. They have frequently made applications for Orders to supply electric power to areas adjoining their own, but they have always been opposed, and successfully opposed, by the Yorkshire Electrical Power Company. I have, sup plied, not one case, but several eases. and any number could be supplied I have a further criticism to make in this respect: that power companies like the Yorkshire Electrical Power Company, for example, frequently buy electricity in bulk from the Corporations of Sheffield and Rotherham, and thus merely act as middlemen, making no effect on their own account to supply electricity, hut drawing from the local authorities, and thus making a profit on the mere transit of it to their consumers.

Mr. HANNON: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but can he cite any case in which the company concerned in this Bill has stood in the way of electrical development in its own area?

Mr. SNELL: If the hon. Member had listened attentively to what I tried to say he would remember that I said I did not propose to suggest that his company had done that, but that all companies were alike: they all went into business for profit.

Mr. HANNON: This is the company we are dealing with.

Mr. SNELL: If I am out of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker will, I am sure, keep me to the point. The hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) will have an opportunity of speaking later. I suggest that this and similar Bills are unfair to the local authorities. A local authority can only keep down prices to the consumer if it is able to have a general supply; if the whole supply of that area is in their hands. But if somebody is to come in and take the most remunerative part of their business, and leave them with that part which scarcely pays at all, it is inflicting a real injury upon the consumers who have to deal with the rest of the power supply. I hope the House will see its way on the grounds of those general principles to refuse this Bill a Second Reading. It seems to me to be, in spite of its commendation from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, to be "a sin against the light itself." rather than to have anything to commend it. The real objection to it is that these patchy, opposing interests, springing up here and there in the community, ought to be swept away, and the whole business put into the hands of a joint electrical authority which would have the power to adjust so as to do the right thing by the community and by the future. But here we are in this situation, that before we know what we want, what the development of the future will be, what the needs of the next generation will be, we propose to invest those predatory companies with powers. When they are given, we shall see in this case, as we have seen in so many other cases, that the community will be compelled to buy out these companies at an enormous sacrifice, because of the privileges which this House ought not to have given. It seems to me to be a thorough stupid and even wicked business. Because this Bill fails to protect the public and secure to them the right of having control over those essential services, I hope the House will
reject it and not give it a Second Reading.

Sir H. NIELD: I congratulate hon Members who have spoken from the other side of the House on the lines they have taken. They have been mutually destructive. The first two Members attacked this company and represented it as being a company which should not be trusted with powers, but the academic speaker who last addressed the House has carefully and very wisely refrained from attacking the individual company, but has given us a lecture on the theory of "Wait and see." I should think that Members on the benches below the Gangway opposite and the benches above the Gangway had nothing to learn from "Wait and see." I am surprised to hear from Socialist speakers that doctrine being inculcated. I see upon the Order Paper no less than three separate Notices of Motion affecting this Bill. The first is what I will call the frontal attack, and is a Motion that the Bill be read upon this clay six months. Of the other two we have one supported by London Members exclusively which is what I may call the first flank attack and which seeks to put off the Bill until after the County Council Elections. Finally, there is the Motion which states that as this company is one which "has failed to give a reasonably adequate service "the House should not proceed with the Bill. That is the other flank attack, and it also has not developed, and so we are left to meet the frontal attack, which is Socialism pure and simple. In a House composed as the present House of Commons is, we arc not going to accept without further inquiry a great many of the statements which have been made in support of it. The last speaker referred to the necessity for waiting in this matter because it concerned the fringe of London, and he said London would probably extend over the area at present. in question before very long. I say reverently, "God forbid." I took part in the inquiry which was held under Lord Ullswater when London attempted to enlarge its boundary at the expense of Middlesex. [HON. MEMBERS: "God help London"!] I say, God help London to be as well governed as the County of Middlesex I have always stood up for it, and I believe hon. Members who represent Middlesex will also stand up for that ancient county—the mother county.

Mr. DAY: What Middlesex says to-day, London says to-morrow.

Sir H. NIELD: Next week. Our theorists on the other side go on to say that they do not know what is the wisest thing to do because we are entering upon a new era. When I heard that statement I thought that a silent thinker following the Debates in this House and listening to controversies outside would have a quiet laugh to himself to hear from those progressive and even revolutionary benches the statement that we really do not know what it is wise to do. What will the ordinary man in the street say to that? I fancy it will be: "A plague on both your Houses." Reference has also been made to the principle being "fundamentally wrong" that private enterprise should be charged with the supply of an essential public service. What principle is attacked? The principle of private capital, which has done everything hitherto for this country and which has made this country prosperous in contrast to that eastern realm so dear to the hearts of my hon. Friends opposite, where desolation and misery prevail. Really I do not suppose that hon. Members opposite themselves believe in some of the statements which have been made. From my experience, which extends to a number of municipalities in the Midlands and elsewhere, private enterprise has always had the best of the game—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]—I hope hon. Members will reserve their cheers until I complete my argument—and private enterprise has always been able to give the greatest advantage to the community, free entirely from many things which have produced parochial and other scandals. Why? Because on the one hand you have a body of keen directors and managers looking after things; on the other hand, you have a number of officials who do their work perfunctorily, and are, very often, hopelessly blind to what is going on under their very noses. I turn to the hon. Member who moved the rejection of the Bill, and I am bound to say that, representing as he does on the County Council of Middlesex the district adjoining that which ho represents in this House, I was very much struck to hear him do something which I myself would not have dreamt of doing, and that was to mention in this House what took place in the com-
mittee of a public authority. I thought these matters were inviolable secrets.

Mr. MORRISON: Will the right hon. Gentleman point out the passage in which I referred to anything that happened in committee? I was not a member of the Parliamentary Committee of the Middlesex County Council at the time. of the negotiations. The quotations which I made were from a report presented by the clerk to the county council as a whole.

Sir H. NIELD: Then my hon. Friend was curiously secretive in the way in which he gave that information to the House. He never intimated that it was the Council's property, but talked about negotiations which went on with the company between committee meetings. He cannot have it both ways—that is what he certainly will not get from those accustomed to straight dealing in municipal as in other affairs.

Mr. MORRISON: Here is the report from which I quoted. I hope in view of that the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw his suggestion.

Sir H. NIELD: If my hon. Friend had said that this matter had been reported to the Council I should have made no objection, but I am complaining about the way in which he placed it before the House. If he reads his speech in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow he will see that he did not say anything of the sort, but represented that these were matters which were going on between the committee and the company.

Mr. MORRISON: In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has now received an assurance that I was not giving away private information, but was quoting from a report which he as well as I received as a member of the county council, will he withdraw his suggestion?

Sir H. NIELD: I will withdraw the suggestion most certainly since I have that assurance, but I do invite my hon. Friend to be a little more candid on a future occasion, As to the statements which have been made about private companies acting against municipalities in this matter, I would point out that in almost every instance the larger municipalities or urban districts in Middlesex obtained Orders under the Act of 1882 and sat down on them and did nothing. It
was only in 1900, when this company got its original Act, that they were able to get a supply of electricity at all. What nonsense it is to talk of private companies interfering with the rights of the local authorities, when the local authorities had the powers and for years made no attempt to use them? We have had it from the hon. and gallant Gentleman who represents the Ministry of Transport that these Orders were taken over and I know, as a resident for 40 years in that particular part of Middlesex, that these Orders were disposed of to the company for a consideration, and that the company worked them. To have a generating station in each one of these districts would be as uneconomic a proposition as could be thought of. We have the evidence that the great urban district of Willesden, as great as any in Middlesex, has thought it prudent to transfer its generating station and take its bulk supply from the company. You have had the same thing repeated again and again throughout the county, at Harrow, Willesden and elsewhere.
This is nothing more or less than an academic Debate to-day as between Socialism on the one hand and private enterprise on the other, and I am quite sure that the House, since it is not to be treated to the red herring of the Ring's Roll to-night, will not hesitate to give this Bill a Second Reading. Let me assure any doubter on this side of the House whose energies—and I appreciate them—are exerted on behalf of the disabled soldiers and sailors, that one of the chief directors of this company obtained honourable distinction by reason of the service that he gave throughout the late War to the soldiers and the sailors. [An HON. MEMBER "Another red herring!"] Well, if you have one fish, you will have another. Really, the representations or misrepresentations which have been made on this subject are such as to make the average Member of this House wake up to the necessity for facing the facts and refusing to have this theoretical doctrine preached on the subject of private enterprise as against municipal control. It is impossible for these authorities to generate their own electricity at anything like the rate at which a large power company can supply it, and let not the House forget that this matter has been before the Electricity Commissioners on two
occasions, and that prolonged inquiries have been held, at which all parties have been represented, and that the Order which was ultimately made for the establishment of a Joint Electricity Authority for this area provides for the very thing that this Bill is endeavouring to carry out. I hope my hon. Friends on this side will realise that, and that this Bill is being promoted with the full knowledge, and I was going to say the full concurrence, of the Electricity Commissioners in order to give effect to that home counties scheme. I saw it stated when last there was a Debate in this House, and it was stated to-night also, that these companies sit still and prevent people getting a supply. Would hon. Members be surprised to know that some of the most strong objections to the Joint Electricity Authority in this area came from the urban districts of Hornsey and Finchley? Your own friends, the lambs of the flock, the urban districts, crying out against this very Order which you say is obstructed by private enterprise! We have had only half the facts to-night, and if all the facts could be ascertained, I think you would never be able to stop it private venture Bill again. There was a statement made by one hon. Member, who, if he had the courage to make that statement outside the walls of this building, without the privilege which attaches to utterances in this building, would have found himself defendant in an action for defamation, because there were very serious statements made, and they included one phrase to the effect that this was not straight business. I am surprised to hear any man get. up and say this is not straight business, and T invite the hon. Member, if he has faith in that statement, to repeat it elsewhere, and see what results may follow.

Mr. BROAD: Do you think we are frightened?

Sir H. NIELD: I do not suppose the hon. Member—[An HON. MEMBER: You would get a brief out of it!"] Some hon. Members can never divest personal interest from these matters. It is all very well to say to a man, "You would get a brief out of it." You may be sure that if I did, the person I cross-examined would have a warm time. Now I want to call attention to another want of candour on the part of those who
oppose this Bill. We were referred to page 16 of the Bill by the hon. Member who moved its rejection, and he read Sub-section (2), and said: "By contrast, look at the way in which the company are going to treat railway companies." He then read Sub-section (3), but he had not learned the necessity for referring to the context of a document. When you read a document, do not read extracts, but read the whole of it. [An HON. MEMBER: "Did, you remember that in your electioneering?" I will answer that by saying that, having been returned eight times to this House, there is not a man present or in my constituency who can say that I have ever made a misrepresentation knowingly.
Clause 25 of this Bill was quoted against. the company as showing that they had treated the local authorities perfunctorily, but had gone on their knees and salaamed to the railway companies, but Sub-section (1) shows that it does not apply to the streets of the local authority at all. It is true that notice has to be given to the local authority, but the streets are private streets not taken over by the local authority, and over which they have no jurisdiction at all. Why was not that quoted, instead of it being suggested that, in respect of the local authorities, they had to have streets broken up after a peremptory notice of 21 days? It is part and parcel of the whole campaign, and you do not get the whole truth. You get a suppressio veri, which enables you to get through if there is not somebody to expose you, though the hon. Members opposite must know that if I am anywhere about and know the facts, they will have them told. The strange part of this Bill is that there is not a single petition outstanding except that of the railway company. Do you suppose that those urban councils in the north of Middlesex, where the fresh air gives a man such vigour, would not have had their objections on the file and insisted upon them? They would say: "Look at this dishonest, disreputable company, which is engaging in fishy business. Should we allow them, whatever it costs, to get their Bill without a fight?" Not a bit of it. Every one of them as quiet as mice, and even the council which is mainly composed of friends of the hon. Member who seconded the Motion for the rejection, so much so that they have most delightful times in
their deliberations, even they are in the quiet mousetrap.
No, Sir, the whole thing is artificial. The company have given satisfaction in the past, and that is the reason there is no petition now. Tottenham? I remember Tottenham at the time it gave up its order, and although lived at Tottenham for a great many years after that, I never heard a complaint. Then it was suggested that the tramway system of the County of Middlesex was being treated as a milch cow, and was being made to pay inordinately for its supply of current, in order that the power company might distribute its 10 per cent., although the tramway made a loss. Will the House believe me when I say that as the Chairman for many years of the Light Railways Committee, which governed the tramways during the time the agreement was made, that the supply of current has been arranged perfectly amicably with the company, and, until the War came, that joint arrangement between the county council and the tramway company was working most advantageously and satisfactorily, and the council was getting its interest regularly paid upon the outlay in construction and maintenance. The county council of Middlesex have worked most harmoniously as the tramway authority with these lessees, to the great advantage of the inhabitants, and they have not got that appalling deficiency which the County of London presents.
I want to call attention to those districts which are looked upon as a kind of promised land, which is about to be filched from the lawful inhabitants, and to be conveyed to the representatives of the evil one. Does the House know that the instructions of Hertfordshire to their counsel before the Electricity Commission were, "We do not want to be in the Order at all, but if we are in the Order, put the whole of us in it." It means that those districts of Hertfordshire will be supplied in reasonable time with electricity, and supplied at a great loss to the company, because it is a pioneer company in that district. In Welwyn Garden City they are taking supplies from this company, and who is there with any knowledge of the 10.0 P.M. affairs of Welwyn Garden City, and the political complexion which, at any rate, hung for a
long time like a clamp cloud over it, would ever suppose that the directors of the Garden City would fail to appreciate a bargain they made? And they are perfectly content with the bargain they made with this company, and make no complaint.

Mr. WALLHEAD: I will not say that about it.

Sir H. NIELD: My hon. Friend lives too far away to know.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman allow me to say I live in the neighbourhood?

Sir H. NIELD: It is certainly making great progress, no doubt very largely helped by the hon. Gentleman. Here is a company that has done its duty well. Therefore, to object to the Second Reading of this Bill is to ask this House to tear up all its precedents, all the records of the past, and to embark upon a fresh policy which can only end in disaster to private concerns and the country generally, together with the dignity of the House of Commons.

Mr. ATTLEE: The hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down has given us a very great entertainment. I do not think I have ever heard him in better form since I heard him before the Electricity Commissioners, when he was endeavouring at one and the same time to persuade the Commissioners that one county ought to come into the scheme and another county ought to come out, both counties being in exactly the same position with regard to London. It showed me how one man could ride on two horses. To-night he has told us that one county has sat down and waited while the ether has gone ahead with the development of electricity with enormous success. So he has it both ways. The hon. and learned Gentleman very much wanted to have all the facts. I think he himself was a little economical in some of the facts he gave. He told us, for instance, the wicked municipalities would not come into the Greater London scheme. But he did not tell us Hornsey and Finchley objected because they were afraid they were going to be handed over to the company.

Sir H. NIELD: My hon. Friend has evidently not followed closely the proceedings of the last inquiry. Hornsey and Finchley were objecting to coming in, because of their association with the North Metropolitan. But the North Metropolitan had no power over them at all.

Mr. ATTLEE: I beg to differ from the hon. and learned Gentleman. I have sat for the last four years with representatives of Hornsey and Finchley considering this matter, and I know the difficulty has always been that they feared to be swallowed up by the North Metropolitan. That is what the Hornsey and Finchley engineers have to say in the matter.

Sir H. NIELD: Where are the petitions?

Mr. ATTLEE: I was dealing with quite a different point, namely, that with regard to the different municipalities that would not come into the main scheme. There was also the question of Willesden, which, apparently, gladly came in with the North Metropolitan. As a matter of fact. Willesden wish they had done nothing of the sort. They were advised to do so by their engineer. Their engineer is now in the North Metropolitan. I turn, however, from the other points made by the bon. and learned Gentleman to the points made by the Parliamentary Secretary to thy Ministry of Transport. I recognise that he had a very unpleasant time with these Bills. I quite agree with him that he is not the father. He is merely put up to hold the baby, and I do not envy him the task. I do not think, however, he was entirely correct when he said that municipalities and public authorities never have any enterprise. I have found a great deal of enterprise amongst municipal engineers, who were willing to experiment. I know that, on my own authority, the electricity committee of which I have been a member for some years. we frequently have suggestions of experiments by the engineers, who are quite willing to take them up. When I was chairman we laid out £750,000.

Mr. D. HERBERT: Of the ratepayers' money?

Mr. ATTLEE: You could not raise £750,000 on the rates in Stepney. We are
not so large or rich as some other parts of London. Therefore we raised the loan which was approved by the Electricity Commissioners.

Mr. HERBERT: Yes, on the rates!

Mr. ATTLEE: Yes, but we required some of the money for other local extensions, and—if the hon. Member will allow me—it was for the future of London. The point put forward to-night has been that the municipalities were not enterprising and were not prepared to take long views or to make experiments. I am pointing out that municipalities do this. Electricity is not the only thing. While that is necessary, what we are particularly concerned about is social experiments. It is in the realm of social experiment that we expect nothing from these companies. The North Metropolitan will not lay its plans in this respect for the bulk of the population. What we fear is that if these further areas are handed over to the power companies we shall not get that concerted social policy of electricity development. I recognise that the Minister is in a difficulty. He has got to work this wretched Act of 1919. He has, as a matter of fact, the whole of this northern part of London practically handed over now, and it is proposed to extend the working of the company to a part of Hertfordshire. It is a very delightful place, and T wish the people there luck, and hope that they will get their electricity. The Parliamentary Secretary said something that some of us in Essex will have to go to bed by candle light. But a great many people have been doing that for years in an area where there are full powers for the company, which has never yet used them.
Our point is that, whatever you may say about these power companies, they have not fully developed the areas which they have already. Until the North Metropolitan Company can satisfy the masses of the people in Tottenham, Edmonton, and other places like these, I do not see why they should be allowed to go outside the area. Fundamentally object to the system where we are handing over the Far East. of London to one big company and handing over the Far North of London to another. The hon. and learned Member for Ealing (Sir H. Nield) talks about the municipalities holding up schemes. He did not tell us
why the greater part of the district he referred to was out of the electricity authority.

Sir H. NIELD: Because we profoundly distrust London!

Mr. ATTLEE: I am very sorry that while talking of Middlesex my hon. and learned Friend endeavours to hold back the northern parts. We. are endeavouring to help the people and the backward areas which my hon. and learned Friend represents. I do, however, suggest seriously that there is a strong case here against the proposal. I think that instead of putting forward these Bills we want to have the problem looked at again, and that we ought to recognise that in cutting up the areas between dd.' various types of electrical organisation we are doing wrong. The North Metropolitan Company, as a matter of fact, ought to become a part of one great authority, and from the social point of view that is enormously important. Tottenham and Edmonton and the other beauty spots by the Lea, who feel they have suffered from private enterprise in a way allowed by the House of Commons, at least should have the advantage of public lighting with their housing. From the point of view of social development—and I know other large areas of Greater London—the matter should not be left to the companies, whose sole aim, necessarily, is the making of profit.

Mr. D. HERBERT: So far as the question of this Bill is one as between private enterprise and those who are opposed to private enterprise, we on this side of the House are content to meet the issue in the Division Lobby without discussing it here in detail. I want to say a few words to any of my hon. Friends on this side of the House who may be in any doubt as to the effect of this Bill, or who may have been misled by some of the speeches from the opposite benches, and to hon. Members who are not quite so closely acquainted with the particular part of the country most affected by this Bill as I am, and my constituency.
However remarkable hon. Members opposite may think it to be, I support this Bill not merely as a supporter of private enterprise generally, but I support this Bill on behalf of the local authorities most intimately concerned with it. Now and then you do find a local authority
which is able to do better for its particular neighbourhood than private enterprise in that particular district. In Hertfordshire there is a municipal electrical undertaking which is doing a remarkable thing. Far from not putting its powers into operation it has put them into operation so well and effectively that they have been able successfully, and on their merits, to withstand what I may call any opposition or competition on the part of the North Metropolitan Company. The biggest and most prosperous municipal electrical undertaking in the home counties, that of Watford, supports this Bill. The hon. Gentleman opposite, who leads the opposition to this Bill, was bold enough to refer to the country districts of Hertfordshire which, he said, were going to be collared under this Bill so that they could get electricity nowhere else, and so that they would, therefore, probably find themselves for a period of years without it, and entirely at the mercy of this company. I think that is, in effect, what he says. I am a member of the Hertfordshire County Council, which considers it its duty to look after the interests of those particular rural districts, and it wants this Bill to go through as providing the very best possible chance of getting electricity into those country districts. Apparently, the hon. Member has not even got up his brief, or if he has he has not been sufficiently candid with the House, for he has not pointed out to the House that under a Clause specially obtained by the Hertfordshire County Council the company, within two years from the passing of this Act, or within such extended time as may be approved, have got to submit proposals to these added areas, and, having submitted those proposals, when they are approved they have got to carry them out.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Is there any specified time?

Mr. HERBERT: Where local authorities are run on non-political principles—I want to be fair about it, there are such bodies on which there are considerable numbers of members of the party to which hon. Members opposite belong—where they are run on those tines a local authority knows when it can do its own business better than private enterprise, as in
the case of Watford; and when in the rest of the county the business can be done better by private enterprise, it takes care to bring in private enterprise whenever it can, and to bring it in effectually. When hon. Members opposite talk about their opposition to private enterprise, I would ask them whether they have never realised the position of these statutory companies. Some hon. Members opposite are not altogether unacquainted with private enterprise; either as small partners in a large business, or as large partners in a small business, many of them have been concerned with it, and I venture to ask whether if they were out to make money by their own private enterprise they would chose the form of a statutory company for the purpose of doing it? Here you have a Bill submitted by a company which, at every step it takes, has to come to this House, and to meet upstairs before a semi-judicial Committee all the objections of those who are specially affected by the Bill, a company that is limited in its profits, limited in the amount it may distribute and limited in its expenditure by this House; and yet it is to be held up to contempt simply on the principle that one ought to condemn private enterprise. Hon. Members opposite, if they condemn a Bill of this sort, ought to realise that they are using a two-edged weapon which may turn against themselves. Their arguments tonight will be used against them in other cases in the future.
There is one point I wish to put particularly to Members on this side of the House. Let me put it in this way. Under what circumstances may it be right to oppose or refuse a Second Reading to a private Bill of this kind? Hon. Members opposite who object in any way to electricity undertakings being carried on by any sort of private enterprise even by statutory companies are perfectly within their rights in opposing a Bill of this kind because they are out for a great principle in which they believe, and therefore, they are entitled to oppose Measures of this kind. On the other hand I do ask hon. Members on this side to consider whether it is right to oppose the Second Reading of a Bill of this kind unless there is 3 great matter of principle involved. This Bill has run the gauntlet of efficient and well-advised local authorities. and it has run that gauntlet successfully. Under
these circumstances I suggest that as this Measure is one which gives the greatest promise, in the opinion of the rural districts of Hertfordshire, of getting electricity at the earliest possible date on the best possible terms, this is a Bill which certainly ought to go before the Committee and be given a Second Reading without hesitation, or any opposition except on the part of hon. Members opposite, whose opposition we do not fear.

Mr. WALLHEAD: I understand from what has been stated by the last speaker that there is no opposition to this Bill from the local authorities of Hertford. The townships in Hertford are small and it is perfectly obvious that under modern conditions it is uneconomic to establish independent local authority electricity generating stations, and if they are to get electricity this is the one means for them to get it. I am going to oppose this Measure. because I think it is entirely inopportune at the present moment. We have heard a great deal about the necessity for electricity in this country, and we have been told that it would be sound policy to establish in various parts of this country large generating electricity stations for the purpose of assisting our industries. In this House we often hear doleful wails about the position in which our industries are to be found and our incapacity to compete with people on the Continent. We often hear doubts as to whether Germany, our late competitor, after she is allowed to recover, we shall be able to cope effectively with her competition. It is frequently stated that one of the reasons why we shall not be able to cope with German competition effectively is because of our defective scientific organisation. Therefore, in my view, it would seem the best policy to defer the passing of such Bills as this until some national policy has been produced, a policy which might be decided by experts. I think that is a point of importance. Experts will tell us whenever a national policy is produced that we must establish a national standard of frequency, and how do we know that this company will be able to do that? If they cannot there will remain the question of remedying the mistake we are making now. I submit that the best
policy for us to pursue would be to establish a national policy at the earliest possible moment.
I oppose this Bill also, and I oppose this question of private enterprise, because I do not think it is a right policy to establish this company in control of this large area in perpetuity. There is no limit to the length of time that their control runs; they are given control practically till the end of time. I am sure, of course, that they will not retain it until then, but so far as this Bill is concerned there is no limit whatever to the length of time that they can control this area. And the area is becoming more important. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ealing (Sir H. Nield) discussed the question of Welwyn Garden City. I happen to live in Welwyn Garden City. He discussed the question of Letchworth. There is not much electricity used there. It is not put into the houses in Letchworth. When Letchworth Garden City began to be developed, they had no hope of getting electricity there, although this company at that time had a monopoly, and the houses were not fitted up for it. But in Welwyn Garden City every house is fitted with electrical appliances, for lighting in particular. My charge against this company is that it is supplying current at too dear a rate. It supplies it in bulk to the Welwyn Garden City Electricity Company at id. per unit. I consider that that is too dear, in bulk.

Mr. HANNON: It is a very good price.

Mr. WALLHEAD: How many great industrial undertakings could afford to run on electricity at 1¾d. per unit? Under the great municipalities of the North, current is supplied to business undertakings at something less than ½d. per unit in bulk.

Mr. HANNON: Are you speaking of light or power?

Mr. WALLHEAD: I am speaking of current. I am talking of bulk supply. I said it comes in bulk at 1¾d. per unit, which I say is dear, because it afterwards has to be distributed for lighting purposes by another company, which has to charge a high price for it, making it prohibitive. I gave a quotation a few nights ago in this House to show that
Manchester Corporation were supplying current, even with a fixed charge, at less than id. per unit.

Mr. HANNON: Not for light.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Yes, for light. My hon. Friend shakes his head, but I have here a bill, which I will show him if he likes, showing that what I say is correct—a bill presented by the Electricity Department of the Manchester Corporation to a cottager customer—

Mr. D. HERBERT: It is worth seeing.

Mr. WALLHEAD: With the utmost pleasure. The charge on that bill to a cottager is 14s, as a fixed charge per quarter—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]—and then he consumes 712 units at the average cost, in a summer quarter, being less than ½d. per unit for lighting, heating. cooking, boiling kettles, cleaning, irons, and so on. If you can go as far as that, I am prepared to listen to your dirge that a great private company, asking for special powers from this House, should be stopped when the best it can do is to supply a growing community at ¾d. per unit, in bulk.
I have listened to the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill. He defends the Bill—he presents the Bill, shall I say, to the House—and I want to compliment him upon the very admirable way in which he has done it. He has met us courteously, and I think the discussion has been conducted with good temper on both sides. I think the hon. Gentleman recognises my point of view. I am irrevocably opposed to the private control of a vast new power like electricity. I believe in public ownership of the public services—I believe that that is the best way in which they can be dealt with. The hon. Gentleman has said that municipalities are backward. I know from my own experience of municipalities who have had machinery put in of the latest type at a given date, and six years afterwards have scrapped it, before it was worn out, because something newer and better had come; and they sold the machinery that they had scrapped to a private company. It was good enough for a private company but not good enough for a municipality. The hon. Member believes private corn-
panies make experiments in various electrical appliances. I should be extremely interested to know what are those generating companies which make experiments with machinery. I should imagine, generally speaking, that those who make those experiments are the producers of the machines—the engineers. If they can produce a machine and can establish its value, of course any company or body of men who desired to improve their service to their customers or to the community they were serving would take advantage of that, and so far as I know municipalities are not behindhand in that regard.
I sincerely hope, though I have not much expectation that my hope will be carried out, that the Bill will be rejected. It fills me wit's amazement that gentlemen who represent great industrialists, the people who come here to ask for protection for certain industries barely able to hold their own, do not cast aside all kinds of bitterness and face the facts squarely and help industry by doing the one thing possible, by giving it cheap power and helping the nation all the way round. It is not that we who oppose private enterprise act from quite an abstract point of view. We oppose this thing and advocate our principle, particularly with regard to electricity, because we believe it will advantage the country as a whole and will be of advantage, not only to the great mass of the people, but to the great industrialists. I believe the captains of industry would be better off with a national scheme of electricity than with this hotch-potch and chaotic mess-up we are likely to get if this kind of legislation is fostered and engendered. For this reason I shall go into the Lobby cheerfully against the Bill, and I would go into the Lobby every night against Bills of this description as cheerfully as I shall go to-night. We shall continue our fight. We will go on, because we believe that ultimately the common sense of the nation will see our point of view, and you with your private enterprise will come on your knees for assistance for the industries you tell us it takes you all your time to make profitable to yourselves and your shareholders.

Mr. GRANT: The hon. Member who has just sat down has forced us to the conclusion that the real answer to the Bill is the objection to private enterprise. The hon. Member sincerely
believes that such services as electricity would be better in the hands of municipalities than of private individuals. It is from that, standpoint that the opposition comes rather than from any substantial criticism of this company—any substantial criticism as to its usefulness in the past and the public services it has rendered or to the possibility of it rendering further services in the future. What is the cause we have to decide to-night—men like myself who are in no way connected with the district and have no interest whatever in the company? Here we have the case of a company which, some 25 years ago, was given powers in perpetuity from this House for its activities in certain areas. During the past 25 years it has well used the powers that the House gave it. It serves 25 districts in that area with power and light. It supplies in bulk nine public authorities. There are 45,000 individuals who, directly or indirectly, are customers of this company. It has spent a vast amount of money, more than £2,250,00 in the district, and, as far as we know, it has satisfied the public and the authorities in the district. The company comes before us this evening and asks for an extension of their activities. The only public authority that really has to deal with the extension area is the Hertfordshire County Council. We have heard, in an admirable speech which has just been delivered, that the Hertfordshire County Council is desirous of this extension.
It seems to me that the only duty, and the bounden duty of hon. Members is to follow local opinion and local desire as it has been expressed. There is no real opposition to this Bill. Two petitions have been presented. One petition by the Middlesex County Council has been met. The only other petition is by a railway company on a small point, which can be met in Committee upstairs. There is no reason why we should vote against this Bill so far as any expression from a public authority is concerned, and I do not think that we ought to be led away by the theoretical ideas of hon. Members opposite. No doubt they are sincere in their views, but we have had a General Election recently and the country has emphatically declared that the views of hon. Members opposite are not the views of the country. Only a few days ago we had an election which showed that there
was no change of public opinion since the General Election.
One hon. Member opposite said that he would vote with pleasure against the Bill. I shall vote with pleasure for the. Bill, because it is the desire of the locality that the Bill should be passed. I shall vote with satisfaction, because I know the company treats its employ´s very well, and because the company has rendered good service, to the community. I shall have no hesitation in supporting the Bill, and I hope my hon. Friends will also support it in order to meet the public demand in the locality. The rejection of the Bill would mean the stoppage of supplies in the district concerned. It would mean that a growing demand could not be met. It would put back the clock. Hon. Members opposite are retrograde. They do not want to go forward, at any rate in regard to this Bill. If they defeat the Bill, it will mean that, for an indefinite time a supply that is asked for will not be forthcoming.

Mr. VIANT: In offering opposition to the Bill I am in no way opposing the Bill simply on theory. The last speaker said that we were simply advocating theories on these benches. Fortunately we are not advocating theories. We have a considerable amount of experience behind the principle which we are advocating. I have here a report from the "Electrical Times" of the 20th March, 1924. It gives the prices of various local authorities who have provided electric current throughout London and the adjoining areas. In addition to that there is a list of private companies who also provide current. I find that the average price per unit for the municipal undertakings amounts to 2.405d. and for the privately-owned undertakings the average price is 3.687d. In the light of those figures I submit that we are no longer backing up theories, but are advocating principles that have proved their value in the interest of the community as a whole. The hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) asked for an instance of any municipality being frustrated in its efforts by the company with which we are concerned this evening. The hon. Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R. Morrison) who moved the rejection of this Bill gave an instance of the manner in which this company did endeavour to frustrate the development sought by the Corporation of Hornsey.

Mr. HANNON: Where is the petition of the Corporation of Hornsey against the Bill?

Mr. VIANT: When the hon. Member refers to the absence of a petition I immediately consider the composition of the various local authorities in the areas over which this company is seeking power. In all those areas the local authorities are controlled by those who are known as Municipal Reformers, Moderates, and all those who are in opposition to municipal enterprise. That does not detract from the statement which I have already made. I suggest that that very largely accounts for the absence of any petition.

Sir H. NIELD: The hon. Member for North Tottenham as a specific cause for the absence of petitions stated that local authorities are no longer prepared to waste their money on legal expenses.

Mr. VIANT: I am only putting forward a commonsense proposal as the reason for the absence of petitions in respect of this Bill. I will go further. The Urban District Council of Willesden and its electricity undertaking have been mentioned. That urban council purchased electricity in bulk from the North Metropolitan Company. There was a time, some few years ago, when the Willesden District Council generated its own electricity. Unfortunately for that area it also was controlled for a considerable time by Municipal Reformers, by those who believed in private enterprise, and with the aid of the electrical engineer the generating plant and the station were sold to the North Metropolitan Company. I will guarantee that such a thing would not occur now with the assent of the ratepayers in the Willesden area. The electricity undertaking of Willesden never paid its way until on the electricity committee there was a majority in favour of public enterprise. Six years ago, for the first time in the history of that undertaking, the Willesden Urban District Council obtained a revenue from its undertaking. No one can review these facts without becoming conscious that you will not get the best out of your undertakings unless you have representatives working the undertakings who are in sympathy with and believe in the principle embodied in those under-takings.
I agree with those who have said that in this Bill, as in the two previous Bills, there are definite principles involved. We on the Labour Benches stand for the public welfare, and we believe that that is best obtained, as I have proved by the figures which I have quoted, through municipal enterprise and not through private enterprise. It is a grossly unfair and unjust thing to relegate power to this company for an indefinite period. There is no time stated in the Bill, Furthermore, there is no restriction whatever put on the price. Full powers are to be given to this company to exploit the area just as it thinks fit. Those who have spoken already have said sufficient to prove that this is by no means a progressive company. It is prepared to obtain powers from this House to stake out an area of control, but it is not progressive in the sense that it is prepared to supply the wants of those who are the inhabitants of the area over which it obtains control. Municipal undertakings do give an eye to the interests of the inhabitants for whom they are supposed to cater. Private companies will only put in the mains in those areas when they are assured that they are going to get a reasonable revenue as a result. Not so the municipal undertakings. Municipal undertakings have first of all to consider whether it is likely to be of value and use to the inhabitants in the area. The result is this, that you have municipal undertakings giving to its inhabitants the supply and the current wherever they are prepared to send in a reasonable requisition for it. On these grounds I submit that this House should be pre pared to reject the Bill. A case has been made out for this Bill being rejected, as was made out on the two previous Bills. The time has now arrived when this Government should be prepared to lay down a national policy in connection with electricity in order that the generations that are to follow may not have to pay enormous sums for our weakness and delinquencies in this Parliament. I hope this Bill will be rejected.

Mr. HANNON: I would like at once torepudiate the suggestion made by the hon. Member opposite that municipal reformers employ their opportunities to encourage private enterprise at the expense of the ratepayers. Municipal reformers have been elected to the local
authorities because of their efficiency in discharging local government. Why are those gentlemen there? They are elected by the ratepayers, and they are discharging their duties with great efficiency, and no hon. Gentleman in this House has the right to come in here and charge those gentleman with maladministration in the interests of private enterprise as opposed to the public. Hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House have repeatedly referred to a national policy. This is a formula with the Socialist party in this country. They want a national policy on everything under the sun. The right hon. Gentleman who sits on the Front Bench and who led his party with such ability in this House and in the country, and with such glorious results at the General Election, had ample opportunity of submitting a national policy on electricity when he was head of the Administration. Did he do it? What is the national policy hon. Members talk about so glibly? Has any member of the Socialist party produced a national policy? Yet they are fighting these Private Bills in this House and refusing them permission to go to a Committee

Division No. 25.]
AYES.
[10.56 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Cooper, A. Duff
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Alnsworth, Majar Charles
Cope, Major William
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)


Albery, Irving James
Couper, J. B.
Gretton, Colonel John


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Grotrian, H, Brent


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wlifrid W
L. Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Crookshank,Cpt.H.(Lindsey, Galnsbro)
Harrison, G. J. C.


Beamish, Captain T. P. H.
Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)


Bethell, A.
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Betterton, Henry B.
Daiziel, Sir Davison
Hawke, John Anthony


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. Davies,
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)
Henn, Sir Sydney H.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Dowson, Sir Philip
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.


Blundell, F. N.
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Dixey, A. C.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Drewe, C.
Hogg, Rt. H on. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)


Brass, Captain W.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hohier, Sir Gerald Fitzroy


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Ellis, R. G.
Homan, C. W. J.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Elveden, Viscount
Hope, Capt. A. 0. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
England, Colonel A.
Hopkinson, A, (Lancaster. Mossley)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)


Brown, Brig,Gen.H.C. (Berks,Newb'y)
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Huntingfield, Lord


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William lames
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Hutchison,G.A.Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)


Burman, J. B.
Fermoy, Lord
Hiffe, Sir Edward M.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Ford, P. J.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Campbell, E. T.
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Jacob, A. E.


Cassels, J. D.
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
James, Lieut. Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Cautiey, Sir Henry S.
Fraser, Captain Ian
Jephcott, A. R.


Cazaiet, Captain Victor A.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Frantic E
Jones, Henry Haydn, (Merloneth)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Ganzonl, Sir John
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Gates, Percy
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Gee, Captain R.
Kindersley, Major Guy M.


Clarry, Reginald George
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Clayton, G C.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Knox, Sir Alfred


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Lamb, J. Q.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Grant, J. A.
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.

upstairs. The one expression is "we want a national policy." Why do you not suggest and produce a national policy? The whole of your intelligence in Eccles-ton Square has been concentrated on producing a national policy.

Mr. SPEAKER: I would ask the hon. Gentleman to address my intelligence.

Mr. HANNON: No one in this House has more respect for your intelligence, Sir, than I have. All the arguments produced on the opposite side of the House against these Bills are mere pleading to put off the opportunity of giving employment to great numbers of people in this country in connection with this enterprise, and frustrate the efforts of great projects for the improvement of the whole condition of our national and civic life. Hon. Gentlemen opposite will have a poor record to present to this country if they continue in the attitude of preventing this kind of legislation.

Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 221; Noes, 91.

Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Orinsby-Gore, Hon. William
Smithers, Waldron


Little, Dr. E. Graham
Pennefather, Sir John
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F.(Will'sden, E.)


Loder, J. de V.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G.(Westm'eland)


Looker, Herbert William
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Philipson, Mabel
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Pilcher, G.
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Mc Donnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Price, Major C. W. M.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Maclntyre, Ian
Radford, E. A.
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell-(Croydon, S.)


McLean, Major A.
Ralne, W.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Macmillan, Captain H.
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Waddington, R.


Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Reid, Capt. A. S. C.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
(Warrington) Remer, J. R.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Rentoul, G. S.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Margesson, Captain D.
Ropner, Major L.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Wheler, Major Granville C. H.


Merriman, F. B.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple


Meyer, Sir Frank
Rye, F. G.
Williams, Corn. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Milne, J. S. Wardiaw-
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Mitchell,Sir W. Lane (Streatham) M
Sandeman, A. Stewart
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Sanderson, Sir Frank
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Moore, Sir Newton J.
Sandon, Lord
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Moreing, Captain A. H.
Savery, S. S.
Wornersley, W. J.


Murchison, C. K.
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)
Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W.A., Ripon)


Neville, R. J.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mc I. (Renfrew, W)
Wood, E.(Chest'r. Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).


Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Shepperson, E. W.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Skelton, A. N.



Nuttall, Ellis
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Oakley, T.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Sir Herbert Weld and Mr. Dennis


O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Herbert.

VALUATION (METROPOLIS) BILL.

Postponed Proceeding resumed on Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

PENSIONS IN WALES.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Commander Eyres Monsell.]

Mr. F. O. ROBERTS: I regret cause of absence of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions, and am very sorry to have to trouble the House at this late hour on a matter which was brought to the notice of the House on Wednesday evening, the 18th February. But there are one or two statements which I desire to correct-, and, in the absence of my right hon. Friend, I would like to call the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the OFFICIAL REPORT of the 18th February. Attention had been drawn to the closing of the Welsh regional pensions office at a certain period of this year. The hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Griffiths) had addressed a certain question to the Minister of Pensions as to the- responsibility for the closing of the office, and asking whether it was not possible for the matter to be reconsidered. The right hon. Gentleman said he could not reconsider this matter,
because the late Minister of Pensions had already decided on this.
A subsequent question addressed to the right hon. Gentleman was as follows:
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his predecessor had promised to reconsider the matter with a deputation of Welsh Members?
The Minister of Pensions replied:
No. I can contradict that, because I have seen the file."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th February, 1925; col. 1244, Vol. 180.]
As I was holding office from January last year until the early part of November, I would like emphatically to say that there is no truth at all in the suggestion that I had actually taken a decision to close this office. Then I see a statement appearing in the Welsh Press yesterday which reiterates, apparently on the authority of the Ministry, that I had taken a definite decision in this matter, and that I had been playing a double game in connection with the Welsh region. I am sorry, therefore, that I have no option but to make the matter quite clear to the House.
The question of the abolition of the Welsh region was one that was brought to my personal notice, if not on the first day, at any rate in the very early days
of my entry into Department. If my recollection is right—and I think I am correct in this—I remember seeing papers which showed that the abolition of the pensions regions was under discussion by my hon. and gallant Friend when he formerly held that office in 1923. It was then agreed that the Welsh region would be one of the first that would have to go. I next dealt with this matter after it had been brought to my notice, either in the last week in January, 1924, or in the early days of February, and I resolved that no immediate action should be taken to deal with the matter. The next stage was when I met the Welsh 'region representatives at a conference in Wales in May. I then told the representatives assembled that I should not close the region until I had had the opportunity of meeting all those who were concerned. I used these words:
Any steps which reduced the number of regional headquarters would not fail to add to the importance and responsibility of the Pensions Department and the area officers. No regional headquarters would be abolished until the Ministry were assured that the ex-service men and their dependants would be as well served under the change as they were under the existing system.
I used those words because I had no wish to take any sort of hasty action at all; and I had not come to the conclusion then that it was desirable that immediate steps should he taken. The next move was on 25th July, 1924, when I received a deputation of Welsh members. I subsequently wrote a considered reply to their secretary, one of the 'Welsh members. This is the concluding part of my letter:
In conclusion I should like to say that I have no desire that the transfer should be rushed through. although I regard it as inevitable. The matter will certainly be discussed by the newly appointed Advisory Council for Wales. It is not my intention that any definite announcement of the transfer should be made until after the Recess.
I understand that some construction has been placed upon the word "inevitable" which was certainly not in my mind when I put it into my communication. My own intention, I thought, was made perfectly clear in the latter portion of the sentence, when I told the members of the deputation that no action should be taken until after the Recess. I want to make the position even a little clearer than that, if I can. The matter was
raised during the General Election. One. can readily understand that in the rush of an election it is not possible to have that ready approach to papers which is always necessary to make a position quite clear and definite, but a considered reply was sent for publication in the Press in Wales, and this is an extract from that letter:
Mr. Robert; has not made any announcement that the regional office is to be abolished. He has, however, indicated his view that this step will be justified in the near future. At the same time he has made it perfectly clear that there must first be full discussion with the Welsh Advisory Council, which is fully representative of all sections of people interested in pensions administration in Wales.
And then a later sentence in the letter says:
It has, however, all along been his intention"—
that is my intention
—"to meet the Welsh Advisory Council personally, and a special meeting of the Council was called for that purpose on 14th October. Unfortunately, the dissolution of Parliament and the General Election compelled Mr. Roberts to cancel his attendance at that meeting.
Subsequently various inquiries were addressed to me through the post, by telephone and by telegram because of the considerable national agitation which had been aroused in Wales, and in answer to those inquiries a reply was sent as follows under my direction:
Certainly no step will be taken"—
that is, towards closing the Welsh Region,
—" without meeting the Advisory Council. All statements that anything else was or is intended are absolutely false.
On 27th October a further statement was submitted to me, and my reply to that, in part, was as follows:
The statement that the work of closing down the Welsh Region is proceeding is untrue.
The next step I felt compelled to take was in answer to a communication which was addressed to me by Mr. Nelson Price, the Chairman of the Welsh Advisory Council. I wrote to Mr. Price on 6th November:
 The decision of the abolition or continuance of the Welsh Regional headquarters of the Ministry of Pensions will now lie in other, hands than mine, and I can only refer to the subject in order to meet some of the misstatements which appear to have been made.
And then there is another paragraph in the same letter:
A more serious statement is this, that the regional work is being quietly transferred, little by little, to London, and that the secret abolition of the region 36 therefore taking place. That is altogether untrue. No step of any sort has yet been taken to abolish the region.
It seems to me that a great measure of misunderstanding, to use the mildest word, has arisen in connection with this matter, but I do want to state personally and most emphatically that I have taken no decision to close the Welsh Region. All I would like to point out to my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary is this, that if I had taken any decision in the matter it would not have been necessary for him to take another, but I understand he has found the position such that he was compelled to take a decision with regard to the closing, and that that decision was not taken until the early weeks of this year. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will find that the statements I have made, in consultation with the papers, are quite accurate. I trust that the House will accept the personal explanation I have made in this matter.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: The hon. Gentleman for West Bromwich has without. any doubt cleared up the matter with respect to where and when and by whom the decision with regard, first of all, to the removal of some of the existing regions and amalgamating them with other regions, and also the abolition of regions altogether, has taken place. Upon several occasions when we have raised this matter we have been dealing with that phase of it, and what I want to do now is to point out that the last time I ventured to address the House one of the great London dailies, the "Times," made me appear to look very foolish with regard to some of the figures which I gave. I think I am well within the recollection of the House when I say that I mentioned that over 18,000 men went to the King's Service during the late Great War. "The Times" said that I took fourteen men out to the War, and they all came back disabled, and that it was almost an incredible thing. What I did say was that out of these 18,000 who went to the King's Service during the War 1,400 were to-day in receipt of parish relief, because they were disabled and unable to work.
In the Rhondda Valley district we have a sub-office dealing with pensions, and it may be interesting to know that, although we have only a sub-office, they have dealt with 12,243 case papers relating to men who were in the War, or their widows or their orphan children. That is the reason we are so keen and energetic with regard to retaining the Welsh Region at least to be the last to be removed if they are to be done away with.
May I point out how we are dealt with in Wales? There are seven entitlement court tribunals and eight assessment Courts. In these tribunals there are 75 people employed, consisting of chairmen, medical men, military men, secretaries and so forth out of that total of 75, five only are able to understand or speak Welsh. After last Saturday only four are left, and in neither of the two Courts left is there a single military service man able to speak or understand the Welsh language. There are other figures that I could give, but I will not do so now. In these two Courts there is not a single Welsh-speaking person able to understand the language of the people with whom they have to deal.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Lieut.-Colonel Stanley): I am sorry to interrupt the hon. and gallant Member, but I wish to answer the criticisms which have been made. Let me, first of all, apologise for the absence of the Minister of Pensions. Naturally, he would have been here, but he has fallen a victim to the prevailing epidemic of influenza. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. F. O. Roberts) has most clearly and correctly stated what has happened. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions, in answer to an interjection which was made very late at night, did say that he could not change the decision because the late Minister of Pensions had already decided on it. I am quite sure the right hon. Gentleman will absolve my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions for any intention of misrepresenting him. for anyone who knows my right hon. Friend knows that that would be the last thing he would like to do. The Minister of Pensions was under a misapprehension, which I myself shared, owing to certain statements which the right. hon. Gentleman opposite has referred to to-night. For instance, there was the
letter which he sent to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Rhondda West (Mr. John), in the earlier part of which he stated that it was the definite policy of the Ministry, in which he entirely concurred, that all the regional headquarters in course of time should be absorbed in the central office in London. And then he went on to say what the right hon. Gentleman has just quoted. The Press communiqu´, which was issued on the 20th of October, contained the statement which the right hon. Gentleman has just read. I am bound to say that when I read that I thought it meant that he had come to a definite decision. But after what the right hon. Gentleman has said, and on further reflection, I see that I have taken the wrong view and that my right hon. Friend has done the same, and that what the right hon. Gentleman was really saying was that it. was his personal opinion, but that he had not come to any definite decision at that time. If my right hon. Friend had been here to-night he would wish me, as he has already asked me, to express his regret to the right hon. Gentleman that he should have been misled and made a statement which has caused people to think the right hon. Gentleman has been playing a double game, which he has certainly not been doing. The decision was one which was not easy to come to. It required very considerable thought and it had been under consideration for a very long time, as the right hon. Gentleman himself said when he went to see the newly-formed Welsh Advisory Council. He foreshadowed then that the region would have to be done away with. He foreshadowed it again in a letter he sent to the hon. Member for Rhondda West, and once more in the Press communiqué. Under those circumstances, when my right. hon. Friend came to be Minister, he had obviously to take up the question at the point where it was left by the right hon. Gentleman. He came to the decision that the Welsh Region should in its turn be done away with, and the Ministry have carried out the spirit of the right hon. Gentleman entirely, because before it was actually definitely decided on, I went down as his deputy and saw the. Welsh Advisory Council, which the right hon. Gentleman had intended to do if it had not been for the, for him I suppose, unfortunate circumstance of the General
Election. I hope that, will dispose of the point the right hon. Gentleman himself raised.

Mr. F. ROBERTS: May I mention that the original decision to close the Welsh Region was taken some time in the year 1923, before I went to the Ministry. That was the general policy and I followed on the general policy which had been laid down.

Lieut. Colonel STANLEY: Certainly. A general policy had been adopted.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: And Nottingham was removed in the first week in November.

Mr. MORRIS: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has said that he went down and met. the advisory council. Did he accept the decision of the advisory council when he met them?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: No, although one goes down and accepts advice from them, a Minister is bound to carry out administrative action himself. He must take the administrative responsibility, and he cannot be told afterwards that he ought to have taken advice that he considered to be wrong. Therefore, I think my right hon. Friend was quite within his rights in carrying out what he considered was the proper administrative course. I now want to refer briefly to what the hon. and gallant Member for East Rhondda (Lieut.-Colonel Watts-Morgan) said. The misstatement in the paper was not any fault of the Ministry.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: Oh, no.

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: But we quite realise that it was a mistake, although it had nothing to do with the removal of the Welsh region. The hon. and gallant Member mentioned that in two different Tribunals—there are seven Entitlement Tribunals and eight Assessment Tribunals—there are 75 people employed, of whom five only are able to speak Welsh. As I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows, these Tribunals are not set up by the Ministry of Pensions— they are not under the jurisdiction of the Ministry. In fact they are above it altogether. They are set up by the Lord Chancellor.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: Perhaps I had better put on a suit of armour and go to the Woolsack!

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: I am not sure that the hon. and gallant. Gentleman wants that. I think he would tackle them without it, but I might mention that we met the Welsh National party the other day and made a recommendation to them, and if they will adopt that we will do our best to see that this particular point is remedied. We have, however, no power over those Tribunals.

If the course I mentioned the other day is adopted I think it will have some good result in the direction he desires.

It being Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.